Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In
no v a t i o
ns
in
Ed u c a t i o
n
Innovative Pathways to School Leadership
u.s . department of educat ionoff ice of innovat ion and improvement
SM
In
no v a t i o
ns
in
Ed u c a t i o
n
u .s . department of educat ionoff ice of innovat ion and improvement
Innovative Pathways to School Leadership
SMSM
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0012, Task Order D010, with WestEd.
Sharon Horn served as the contracting officer’s representative.
U.S. Department of EducationRod Paige
Secretary
Office of Innovation and ImprovementNina S. ReesAssistant Deputy Secretary
Michael J. Petrilli
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary
Patricia Gore
Director, Teacher Quality Programs
December 2004
This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint
this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improve-
ment, Innovations in Education: Innovative Pathways to School Leadership, Washington, D.C., 2004.
To order copies of this report,
write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;
or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;
or e-mail your request to: [email protected];
or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org/;
or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call
1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter
(TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734.
This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/prepare/alternative/index.html.
On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
iii Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Foreword v
Introduction 1
Part I: Elements of Innovative Pathways to School Leadership 9
Part II: Program Profiles 31
Boston Principal Fellowship Program, Boston, Mass. (33)
First Ring Leadership Academy, Cleveland, Ohio (37)
LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago), Chicago, Ill. (41)
NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership), Monroe Township, N.J. (45)
New Leaders for New Schools, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and San Francisco Bay Area (49)
Principals Excellence Program, Pike County, Ky. (53)
Acknowledgments 56
Appendix A: Research Methodology 57
Appendix B: Resources 59
Notes 61
Contents
iv
L I S T O F F I G U R E S
Figure 1. Characteristics of Profiled Programs 4
Figure 2. Study Scope and Guiding Questions 7
Figure 3. Boston Principal Fellowship’s Competencies of Effective Principals 11
Figure 4. New Leaders for New Schools Candidate Selection Criteria 14
Figure 5. Interview Guide to Identify First Ring Superintendents’ Priorities 17
Figure 6. Boston Public Schools’ Essentials of Whole School Improvement 19
Figure 7. NJ EXCEL e-Mentor Responsibilities 21
Figure 8. LAUNCH Mentor Contract 23
Figure 9. Principals Excellence Program Self-Assessment 26
Figure 10. NJ EXCEL Program Standards and Performance Rubric 28
v Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Foreword I am pleased to introduce the sixth publication in the Innovations in Education series: Innovative Pathways to
School Leadership. This series, published by my Department’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, has already
identified concrete, real-world examples of innovations in five important areas: public school choice, supplemental
educational services, charter schools, magnet schools, and alternate routes to teacher certification.
As we approach the third anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act, early evidence shows that America’s schools
are meeting the challenge of moving our students toward proficiency in reading and math. The people most respon-
sible for this progress are the leaders of our schools, who play a critical and important role in developing a vision
for a high-quality education for every student and in implementing and supporting a learning environment that is
developed and shared by key stakeholders. No Child Left Behind puts enormous pressure on these leaders to increase
student achievement and close the achievement gap. We want to ensure that they are provided with the tools and
training they need to succeed in this endeavor. This guide is dedicated to them.
As readers may know, my father was a school principal, and my mother a librarian. They taught me the importance
of education—to individuals, and to communities. I have been proud to honor their examples by serving as super-
intendent of the seventh-largest school system in the nation, and now as secretary of education. But I never forget
that the most challenging—and rewarding—leadership roles in education are on the front lines in the schools.
We know from decades of research and common sense that a strong school leader is an indispensable ingredient for
school improvement. Yet, for too long, we have been satisfied with preparation programs that often lack rigorous
standards and a coherent, systemic approach for recruiting, preparing, and supporting school CEOs. However, that
is changing. A consensus is forming across political and ideological perspectives that our nation needs to tap new
sources for school leaders, as well as support the talented educators already in the system.
We are still in the early days of this movement to create innovative, effective pathways to school leadership. In fact,
while many states have made great progress in tearing down the barriers that keep talented individuals out of the
teaching profession, similar barriers remain largely in place for potential school leaders. Nevertheless, even under
current constraints, entrepreneurial school districts, states, higher education institutions, and others have developed
promising programs that draw new talent into leadership roles and provide job-embedded preparation and support
to ensure the success of these leaders in today’s schools.
This guide highlights six of these programs. They are a diverse set—rural and urban, focused on traditional pub-
lic schools and on charter schools, and so forth. But they all have a few things in common: an unrelenting
vi
commitment to program rigor and quality; a clear vision of strong school leadership; a cohort structure that en-
courages candidates to support one another throughout their careers; and a culture of continuous improvement.
Most of these programs are relatively young. While they have not been in place long enough to have extensive
data proving their effectiveness, they do appear to have some promise for success. It is our hope that these
pioneering programs will provide ideas and strategies that help to strengthen school leadership preparation and
professional development efforts.
Those of us at the federal level will continue to keep an eye on these promising programs and root for their
success and replication. We will also continue to encourage and promote the efforts of those who are in
schools and on the front lines, doing the difficult but exhilarating work of fulfilling the promise to leave no
child behind.
Rod Paige
U.S. Secretary of Education
December 2004
1 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Unequivocal urgency shapes our national discussion of public education. Students strive to meet new
academic standards while their teachers work to improve the quality and equity of education opportu-
nities. Yet achievement gaps persist, particularly in urban and rural schools. The demand for effective
leadership is clear. We need school leaders who visualize successful student learning, understand the
work necessary to achieve it, and have the skills to engage with others to make it happen. How can we
prepare more individuals to meet these challenges?
This guide highlights six diverse examples of the hard work underway across the country to answer that
question. These programs are offering innovative pathways to school leadership, and people like Kyle
Dodson are signing on.
Introduction
earn a Massachusetts Administrative Credential with-
out needing to return to school. And at the other end
of this one-year program, he would be prepared to take
the helm of an urban school—a prospect that until that
point had seemed out of reach.
Dodson says BPF spoke to him because he wanted to
make a difference in the lives of urban youths, espe-
cially African-American students “who need some hope
in their lives.” Kyle’s philosophy is, “Deal with life as it
is and work to change it to what you want it to be.”
Being a principal would give him an opportunity to do
that work. So, with his family’s support, he applied to
BPF and was accepted in June 2003 as a fellow in the
program’s first cohort.
Dodson was just the kind of candidate a nontraditional
program hopes to attract. In addition to a graduate de-
gree in management, Dodson brought a background of
Kyle Dodson hadn’t planned to become a public school
principal at this stage of his life. Although part of him
was drawn to the idea of working with urban youths,
his life had taken him in a different direction. He had
earned a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard
University and an MBA from Columbia University. In
January 2003, he was working as the director of mul-
ticultural student affairs at Saint Michael’s College in
Vermont. The thought of enrolling once again at a uni-
versity just to “jump the hurdles” of getting an admin-
istrative credential held no appeal.
But when a friend told Dodson about an expedited
principal preparation program called Boston Principal
Fellowship Program (BPF) that focuses on developing
effective leaders for Boston’s most challenging schools,
something resonated. Taking this step would mean
moving his family, but, on the other hand, he could
2
successful leadership experience; a deep understand-ing of the most pressing issues facing urban education; strong skills in building relationships with students and adults; an ability to analyze and interpret data; and a passion for the work.
In May 2004, Dodson was hired as the principal of a new school in Boston. Looking ahead to the challenge, he said: “I believe that all young people want to and can learn at high levels. I also believe that there are some very basic principles and practices that will best provide a young person with an opportunity to be suc-cessful. One of the primary tasks seems to be creating an environment where the dizzying array of societal and personal challenges that each student brings to the building can be stabilized and brought under con-trol long enough to develop the skills and competen-cies that will give that young person options.”
It’s too soon to know the full impact Dodson will have at his school, but he brings with him the skills, the lead-ership qualities, and the understanding of students’ context that promise success. These include the deter-mination and ability to create a culture of high-quality performance that energizes, motivates, and supports teachers who, in turn, can help their students hurdle the achievement gap.
Dodson embodies the promise of new pathways to school leadership such as BPF and the five other unique programs introduced in this guide. All are based on the premise that by inventing new pathways to school leadership, attracting experienced and successful lead-ers, focusing on the essential elements of school im-provement, and clearing unnecessary hurdles along the path, they can attract high-quality professionals to lead schools where they are most needed. Most of these programs are relatively young in their development.
They are testing and learning new ways to do things that are creative responses to the urgent need in their particular settings for high-quality principals. In doing so, they demonstrate innovative strategies that can be adapted to other settings.
Preparing the Next Generation of School LeadersGreat schools have great leaders. That’s the compelling
if obvious message from two decades of research on
effective schools.1 Yet finding effective leaders is not
easy. As with many things, when it comes to principals,
the central issue isn’t quantity, it’s quality. While most
states have plenty of people who are credentialed as
school administrators—often more than they need—
many school districts report having too few highly
qualified candidates to fill their vacant positions. The
shortage of top-notch principals is worrisome in the
face of the escalating demands of No Child Left Behind.
The job of a principal, always challenging and complex,
is becoming even more so.
New expectations for principals run well beyond tra-
ditional requirements of managing school operations.
Recent and ongoing research2 points to some key ac-
tions that effective school leaders consistently demon-
strate. Notably, successful principals3 establish an in-
tense focus on learning and communicate its centrality
in everything they do. Their high expectations combine
with a sense of urgency to focus attention on learn-
ing for all subgroups of students, including the eco-
nomically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities,
students with disabilities, and English language learn-
ers. No excuses override their commitment to student
learning. Effective school leaders understand that they
are in a position to mobilize others by:
3 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
›› articulating and modeling core values that support a challenging and successful education for all;
›› establishing a persistent, public focus on learn-ing at the school, classroom, community, and individual levels;
›› working with others to set ambitious standards for learning; and
›› demonstrating and inspiring shared responsibility and accountability for student outcomes.
Current research4 also suggests that effective school
leaders set a tone of mutual trust and respect among
teachers, students, parents, and community members.
They take deliberate action to understand their school
communities and form partnerships that focus on
learning both inside and outside of the school.
These leaders garner the full range of resources available
for their schools, and they develop alliances to proac-
tively seek support for student and professional learn-
ing goals. Moreover, they deeply understand effective
instructional strategies and help teachers learn them.
Indeed, they create structures and time for teachers
to collaborate, examine student work together, iden-
tify instructional improvement strategies, and learn
from one another. They frequently visit classrooms and
coach classroom teachers in how to analyze student
achievement data so that they can make more effective
instructional decisions.
These leaders act strategically to: define and guide
needed improvements in teaching and learning; iden-
tify teacher-leaders who have the potential to guide
and support others’ learning; create opportunities to
share responsibility and leadership for learning; make
workplace improvements that contribute to improv-
ing instruction and learning; build organizational
coherence; and engender confidence among students
and teachers that, individually and together, they will
successfully achieve their learning goals and sustain
continuous improvement over time.
Traditional education administration programs and cer-
tification procedures are producing insufficient numbers
of these leaders. State laws and regulations generally
set forth certification requirements for public school
principals,5 which typically require a set number of years
of teaching experience and the completion of univer-
sity coursework in education administration. Custom-
arily, students self-enroll into traditional preparation
programs, rather than being recruited, and selection
procedures in these programs rarely include a screening
to determine candidates’ leadership experience and po-
tential along with other preferred qualities and disposi-
tions (e.g., belief that all students can learn, ability to
handle pressure, commitment to excellent teaching).
In most cases, once accepted, individual candidates
progress through a curriculum that includes a series of
discrete courses that are not connected to the reality of
a school leader’s actual work. Often such coursework
presents the complexity of what principals do as a set of
independent components, leaving candidates to put the
pieces together on their own with little practical school
administrative experience or context. Moreover, tradi-
tional preparation programs are unlikely to customize
or personalize coursework to prepare potential princi-
pals to effectively lead schools with the particular char-
acteristics of those in which they will work (e.g., high-
poverty, low-achieving urban schools; schools with a
majority of English learners; isolated rural schools).
The pressing need for a greater number of principals
capable of meeting higher expectations has generated
4
FIGURE 1. Characteristics of Profiled Programs
Program/Location/Program Initiated Admission Requirements No. of Applicants No. of Participants Participant Demographics
BOSTON PRINCIPAL FELLOWSHIP
Boston, Mass.
2003
Bachelor’s degree; three years experience in teaching, youth development, or management; pass state licensure exam
(2004) 65 (2004) 10
(2005) 11
2004 Gender: 60% female
2004 Ethnicity: 64% White 26% Afr. Am. 5% Asian Am. 5% Hispanic
2005 Gender: 70% female
2005 Ethnicity: 70% Afr. Am. 20% Hispanic 10% White
FIRST RING LEADERSHIP ACADEMY
Cleveland, Ohio
2003
First Ring superintendents nominate participants with teaching credentials who are employed in First Ring Schools and have demonstrated leadership potential
1–3 per district (2004) 26
(2003) 26
2004 Gender: 62% female
2004 Ethnicity: 70% White 30% Afr. Am.
LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago)
Chicago, Ill.
1998
Master’s degree; Illinois Type 75 Administrative Credential; six years teaching experience; previous leadership
(2004) 175 (2004) 21 2003 Gender: 76% female
2003 Ethnicity: 44% Afr. Am. 28% Hispanic 28% White
NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership)
Monroe Township, N.J.
2003
Master’s degree; five years teaching experience; requirements specific to four different models
(2005) 145 (2005) 100
(2004) 109
(2003) 66
2004 Gender: 76% female
2004 Ethnicity: 83% White 8% Afr. Am. 8% Hispanic 1% Asian Am.
NEW LEADERS FOR NEW SCHOOLS
New York, N.Y., Chicago, Ill., Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tenn., and San Francisco Bay Area, Calif.
2000
Bachelor’s degree; five years professional experience; two years K–12 teaching experience; demonstrated leadership
(2005) 1,100 (2005) 90
(2004) 56
(2003) 52
(2002) 31
(2001) 13
2004 Gender: 60% female
2004 Ethnicity: 60% Afr. Am. 30% White 7% Hispanic 3% Asian Am.
PRINCIPALS EXCELLENCE PROGRAM
Pike County Schools Pikeville, Ky.
2002
Holds or is eligible to hold principal certification
(2004) 25
(2003) 21
(2004) 15
(2003) 15
2004 Gender: 33% female
2004 Ethnicity: 100% White
5 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Cost Per Participant Percent Placed Following Program
$60,000 fully paid residency and coursework
$4,000 optional expense to fellow for UMASS credits/degrees
2004: 60% as Principals 30% as Asst. Principals 10% Other Administrators
$21,000 for coursework and site-based practice
$4,000 optional expense for CSU units
2004: 25% as Principals and Asst. Principals
$65,000 fully paid internship and coursework
2004: 42% as Principals 34% as Asst. Principals 24% as Central and Area Administrators
Tuition-based
Model 1 $6,500 Model 2 $7,500 Model 3 $9,500 Model 4 $3,000
2003 (January cohort): 51% as Principals, Asst. Principals
2003 (July cohort): 35% as Principals, Asst. Principals
$65,000 fully paid coursework and yearlong full-time residency (within the LEA salary schedule)
2004: 60% as Principals 35% as Asst. Principals
$12,000 fully paid coursework, residency, instructional materials, substitute costs
2004: 73% as Principals, Asst. Principals, Deans
promising reforms in some traditional administrator
preparation programs, such as cohorts of candidates
who train together, field-based experiences, and more
practical application of coursework. These reforms are
hopeful and well-intentioned, but insufficient. The ur-
gent and compelling need for large numbers of effec-
tive school leaders requires more. It calls for accelerated
and intensely focused preparation programs that stra-
tegically recruit and rigorously screen potential candi-
dates, then immerse them in authentic coursework and
integrated field experiences that prime candidates for
success in challenging and demanding school settings.
Bold New ApproachesThis guide looks at six pioneering programs that recruit
and prepare principals in inventive ways. Building on
their states’ modifications to leadership credentialing
requirements6—and the ability of state-approved prep-
aration programs to apply for waivers from existing
certification requirements—these innovative and en-
trepreneurial programs are developing new recruiting
strategies to attract potential leaders from beyond the
traditional pipeline of experienced teachers who self-
select into the profession through university-based
coursework. One way they are streamlining the prepa-
ration process is by accepting candidates who meet
highly selective criteria, including successful leadership
experience along with effective skills in communica-
tion, interpersonal relationship-building, data analysis
and interpretation, strategic thinking, and problem
solving. These programs concentrate learning experi-
ences on the knowledge and skills needed to succeed as
a principal in challenging circumstances. They provide
intensive supports such as mentoring and coaching
by experienced successful principals. Moreover, they
6
emphasize the principal’s role as a catalyst for change
and prepare principals to hold themselves accountable
for student achievement results.
All of these programs have the same aim: generating
highly qualified principals. But each does it in a way that
reflects its unique roots and context: an urban school
district’s need for well-prepared leaders who can carry
out its school reform agenda; a rural district building an
internal leadership pipeline; a consortium of “first ring”
urban-suburban school districts developing a shared pool
of highly qualified principal candidates; a state school
administrators association determined to create an ex-
pedited route to the principalship; a large urban school
district’s administrators’ union committed to recruiting,
preparing, and supporting fledgling principals; and a na-
tional nonprofit organization focused on developing a
new generation of highly skilled urban principals.
The six programs featured in this guide offer promis-
ing practices for others who aim to develop innovative
solutions to our schools’ urgent demand for greater
numbers of effective school leaders, particularly in
high-need urban and rural schools. While each pro-
gram is unique, they collectively reflect our emerging
understanding of what it takes to be an effective school
leader and of what it takes to develop that leader.7
The innovative programs profiled in this guide have
attracted a range of experienced and talented lead-
ers, including many who otherwise would not have
considered becoming school principals because of the
barriers—real or imagined—they encountered. These
programs appeal to individuals who want to lead chal-
lenging schools in specific urban or rural settings and
those who want a deeply practical, “real-life” prepara-
tion experience. They illustrate commitment, ingenuity,
and a variety of practices from which other programs
may learn and which can be adapted to other settings
and school leadership contexts.
Case Study Sites and MethodologyThe six programs featured in this guide are: Boston
Principal Fellowship Program, Boston, Mass.; First Ring
Leadership Academy, Cleveland, Ohio; LAUNCH (Leader-
ship Academy and Urban Network for Chicago), Chica-
go, Ill.; NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for
Educational Leadership), Monroe Township, N.J.; New
Leaders for New Schools, New York, Chicago, Washing-
ton, D.C., Memphis, and San Francisco Bay Area; and
Principals Excellence Program, Pike County, Ky. Basic
statistics about these sites appear in figure 1. For a
narrative summary of each site’s context and program
description, see Part II of this guide.
These sites were selected from a larger pool of possible
programs through the benchmarking methodology
that underlies this study. Adapted from the four-phase
benchmarking process used by the American Produc-
tivity and Quality Center, as well as general case study
methodology, the study proceeded through several
phases (described more fully in appendix A).
A study scope or conceptual framework was developed
at the beginning of the project to guide site selection
and analysis. Developed from an examination of rel-
evant research literature, the framework was reviewed
and refined by a panel of experts. Figure 2 outlines the
final study scope and guiding questions.
Initially, 60 potential sites were identified using on-
line search descriptors such as “alternative leader-
ship preparation,” “alternative principal certification,”
7 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
FIGURE 2. Study Scope and Guiding Questions1. The program’s vision of high-quality school
leadership and what it takes for school leaders to be ready to succeed.
›› What is your vision of high-quality school leadership?
›› What are the mission and goals of the program?
›› What are the differences between your program and other school leadership preparation programs?
2. The innovative and entrepreneurial strategies the program employs to identify and recruit potential school leaders.
›› What kinds of participants is the program designed to attract?
›› Where do you market the program?
›› What criteria do you use to identify and select participants?
3. The program’s design and participants’ practical learning experiences.
›› What are the components of the program?
›› How do program participants interact with mentors, experts, coaches, and models?
›› What follow-through experiences and support does the program offer program participants during their induction phase of development?
4. The evaluative strategies the program uses to determine its effectiveness in preparing high-quality school leaders.
›› What performance standards does the program use to evaluate its effectiveness in preparing high-quality school leaders?
›› How are school performance and student achievement data used to evaluate the program’s effectiveness?
›› How are data used to revise and refine the program?
›› Are any external evaluation or research studies of this program available?
5. The program’s long-term sustainability.
›› How is the program financially and organizationally sponsored?
›› What are the prospects for long-term viability of the program?
›› How is the program building organizational and financial sustainability for the future?
›› How can your financial, structural, and organizational procedures serve as models for school leadership programs with similar goals?
8
”alternative administrative certification,” “expedited
certification,” and “accelerated certification.” A screen-
ing process honed the list to 18 sites. These second-
round sites were selected based on four criteria:
(1) candidates are recruited into the program based
on demonstrated leadership experience; (2) the pro-
gram offers an accelerated route to certification;
(3) the program is currently accepting candidates; and
(4) it has evidence of promising practices in the 24 ar-
eas of the study scope, such as screening candidates
using stated criteria, having tailored, field-based pro-
gramming, and providing strong mentor support. The
18 potential sites were then screened using a weighted
criteria matrix based on the study scope. The final six
sites scored between 24 and 20 on a scale of 24 pos-
sible points and were ranked as the top six. In addition,
they represented a range of geographic locations and
types of programs.
Data collection took place through: two-day on-site
visits; interviews with program administrators, faculty,
current candidates, and graduates; and review of docu-
mentation. This guide is synthesized from a more com-
prehensive research report that includes case descrip-
tions and cross-site analysis of key findings.
This descriptive research process suggests promising
practices—ways to do things that others have found
helpful, or lessons they have learned about what not to
do—and practical “how-to” guidance. The recommen-
dations in this guide are based on a qualitative analysis
of data from each site and do not represent experimen-
tal research or quantitative analysis that can yield valid
causal claims about what works. Therefore, readers are
advised to judge the merits of these suggestions ac-
cording to their understanding of the reasoning behind
them and their fit with local circumstances.
9 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
The six innovative programs in this study evolved in response to school districts’ frustration in finding
and keeping adequate numbers of well-prepared school principals who are willing and able to lead chal-
lenging schools to high performance. In each case, the founders of these “grow-your-own” programs
determined that existing ways of attracting and preparing principals for these jobs were falling short of
what was needed in their particular context.
Part I: Elements of Innovative Pathways to School Leadership
These pioneering programs seek to recruit successful
and experienced leaders from both within and without
public education and prepare them to be ready to suc-
ceed as leaders in challenging public school settings.
To do so, each program has started with a clear vision
of the kinds of leaders needed to meet the needs of its
constituent districts and regions. In addition, each has
developed rigorous recruiting and candidate selection
criteria, a meaningful and relevant program of course-
work and fieldwork, and processes for building and sus-
taining the program over time.
Guiding Vision of Powerful School LeadershipDriving the development of each program was a com-
pelling belief in the importance of highly committed
and high-performing school leaders—individuals who
were prepared to successfully mobilize the necessary
knowledge, skills, resources, and energy to challenge
and overcome institutionalized barriers to student
achievement and to generate conditions in which all
students achieve successful outcomes. Each of the six
programs began with a clear and highly focused vision
of the kinds of leaders needed within its specific con-
text, and each continues to relentlessly pursue that vi-
sion through its program structure and design.
The vision of Kentucky’s Principals Excellence Program
(PEP), which serves rural districts, exemplifies the delib-
eration that characterizes each program: “The Principals
Excellence Program will transform the principalship in
underserved rural school districts from school manage-
ment to visionary instructional leadership that assures
high-quality learning for all rural students.” That vision
permeates all facets of PEP’s program and is the basis
for decisions about program design and refinement.
Eight program objectives define PEP’s path to achieve
the vision.
10
FOCUSING THE PROGRAM: WHAT MAKES A GREAT PRINCIPAL?
Extensive research over the last two decades has
contributed to our understanding of what it takes to
be—and to develop—an effective principal.8 Analysis
of these data yields a clear picture of what effective
principals do, what they know, what they believe about
student learning, how they interact with teachers, and
how they reach out to parents and the broader com-
munity. The most significant and instructive finding
emerging from the research is this: Leadership mat-
ters—a lot. Simply stated, it takes an effective principal
to make a successful school. When leaders mobilize
action by declaring a focus on learning and then lead
from a set of fundamental values and beliefs about
learning and about students’ ability to achieve, their
schools are more likely to identify, set, and achieve am-
bitious goals for student learning.
While it’s clear that good school leaders share common
characteristics, it’s equally clear that effective leaders
are deeply attuned and responsive to the environment
in which they operate. It makes sense that productive
community outreach and parental engagement are
likely to look very different in the hills and hollows of
rural Kentucky than in the densely packed urban neigh-
borhoods of Boston, Chicago, or New York City.
Similarly, successful instructional leadership and teach-
er development may require a different approach in a
high-turnover district where a significant percentage of
teachers each year are new to the profession as com-
pared to a district with large numbers of veteran edu-
cators and an active mentoring program. So while all
six sites highlighted in this guide have grounded their
program development and goals in the significant body
of research about effective school leadership, each has
interpreted that research against the backdrop of the
districts it serves. The aim is to prepare the next genera-
tion of leaders to be able to step in and do well by any
school but, most of all, to be effective in each program’s
constituent district or districts, able to engage with the
district’s vision of school improvement, and ready to un-
dertake the hard work required to realize it. Operating
on the belief that “great principals lead great schools,”
the New Leaders for New Schools program defines a
great principal as one who coaches and inspires teach-
ers to reach and teach every child and collaborates with
students’ parents, families, and communities to make
schools work. The program boldly aspires to transform
American education by creating a critical mass of such
principals in urban school districts.
The Boston Principal Fellowship Program (BPF)
evolved from the district’s ambitious whole-school
reform initiative and its superintendent’s conviction
that school leadership is the single most important
factor in each school’s success. In support of that
conviction, he allocated district funds and other re-
sources to create an internal leadership development
program to enhance the skills of the district’s current
principals, preparing them to carry out their critical
role in Boston’s whole-school reform plans. The super-
intendent also launched a “grow-your-own” prepara-
tion program—Boston Principal Fellowship Program
(BPF)—that immerses participants in the daily work
of effective principals and then places them in some
of the city’s neediest schools. The program’s driving
vision is that principals are “instructional leaders
who effectively improve the teaching and learning
process in their schools.” (See figure 3 for Boston’s
competencies of effective principals.)
11 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
FIGURE 3. Boston Principal Fellowship’s Competencies of Effective Principals
Boston School Leadership Institute
Competencies of Effective Principals
Effective Principals:
• Understand how children and adults learn.
• Analyze instruction and student learning through regular classroom observations and provide detailed
feedback to teachers that supports instructional improvement.
• Use data to measure student learning, instructional improvement and to drive planning.
• Create a school community that is devoted to social justice, high expectations for all, and equity in students’
opportunity to learn.
• Understand the achievement gap and implement explicit strategies to close the gap.
• Develop and communicate a shared vision and common understanding of effective classrooms and instruction
and organize the school on it.
• Create a collegial environment in which leadership is shared, professional practice is made public, risk-taking
and innovation are supported, and consistent, high-quality instruction is paramount.
• Understand the needs and assets students, parents and the community bring to schools and build strong
relationships with all constituents.
• Use the school budget, human resource functions, and other resources strategically to support improved
student learning.
• Develop and maintain a safe and disciplined learning environment and manage building operations in support
of student learning.
• Reflect on practice and continually refine leadership, based on learning and experience.
12
MOVING FORWARD IN A FOCUSED DIRECTION
New Jersey’s EXCEL (Expedited Certification for Educa-
tional Leadership) program intends to prepare its candi-
dates to be “visionary leaders with the knowledge, skills,
dispositions, and readiness for them to be effective agents
of change and improvement and effective instructional
leaders who actively advocate for and guide the achieve-
ment of high academic standards by all students.”
The concept of the principal as a “change agent” also
guides the First Ring Leadership Academy in Cleveland,
which defines an effective principal as “a change agent
able to lead a school community to improve instruction
so that all students in First Ring schools achieve at high
levels.” Similarly, Chicago’s LAUNCH identifies a highly
qualified principal as one who is “ready to lead the
school to high achievement by continuously improving
teaching and learning so that every child realizes his
or her educational potential.” Each of these programs
delineates—in a set of standards—the knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and behaviors one needs to grow into the
role of instructional leader, and then structures selec-
tion criteria, curricula, an apprenticeship, and perfor-
mance measures around those standards.
The critical importance of the program vision in these six
programs is illustrated in the many significant ways their
visions have provided a clear focus and sense of purpose
for them. LAUNCH incorporates its vision and focus into
a standards-based assessment program. Twenty-four in-
dicators of effective leadership serve as the foundation
for both its instructional program and its formative as-
sessment of candidates’ leadership competencies.
Invest in Being SelectiveAll six programs offer an accelerated pathway to be-
coming a principal. While the programs differ from one
another in design and structure, they share such char-
acteristics as a rigorous curriculum, demanding field-
based projects, and an expedited timeline. All of the
featured sites agree that their programs do not have
the luxury of time to shape a candidate’s belief sys-
tem about student learning or to develop foundational
leadership skills. Candidates must come with these
qualities fully developed. In short, they need to be able
to hit the ground running. Furthermore, each program
invests substantially in its candidates. (Figure 1 details
the cost per participant in each program.) Ensuring a
good return on that investment is a high priority.
All programs strongly emphasize that they are not
remedial; instead, they aim to transform individuals
with a proven track record of leadership into school
principals who can effectively promote great instruc-
tion and learning in their schools. They say the secret
to their success is not so much the specifics of their
instructional program—important as that effort is—as
it is to enroll the right candidates.
Each program deliberately screens and selects partici-
pants who are already equipped with the appropriate
A Powerful, Guiding Vision:›› Conveys a clear, focused picture of what
an effective school leader does to improve instruction and learning;
›› Reflects evidence-based research;
›› Mobilizes action to attain it; and
›› Keeps the program on track.
13 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
experiences and dispositions to become powerful
principals. And each provides those participants with
an accelerated program whose every element power-
fully radiates from its vision.
Each of the six programs defines the ideal candidate
slightly differently, but the personal traits and leader-
ship competencies sought are similar in all. The pro-
grams seek people with a passionate and demonstrated
commitment to academic improvement for every
student, a genuine belief that all children are intelli-
gent and will learn and make progress, given the right
circumstances. They want self-aware individuals who
understand great teaching and learning, are creative
problem solvers, and have strong communication and
collaboration skills. To that end, each program starts
with a comprehensive screening process based on pro-
gram-specific criteria that reflect its guiding vision of
powerful school leadership. (See figure 4 for an exam-
ple of screening criteria from New Leaders.)
All programs require at least a bachelor’s degree; in
New Jersey and Chicago, candidates must have a
master’s degree. All require professional experience,
including some teaching, although Boston accepts
those with a youth development background. In some
instances, programs are designed specifically to devel-
op new principals; others also look to further develop
individuals who are already working as principals or
assistant principals.
Beyond such basic requirements, the programs also
look at more qualitative factors. Boston, for example,
asks candidates to articulate their personal theories of
leadership. New Leaders seeks people with an unrelent-
ing commitment to ensuring that every child achieves
at high levels. Its selection criteria (see figure 4) are
based on its vision of effective school leadership that
consists of high expectations and respect for every
child, instructional leadership, school-family-commu-
nity partnerships, data-driven decisions, collaboration
and distributed leadership. The PEP screens its candi-
dates for a strong knowledge of instruction, curricu-
lum, and assessment, along with an understanding of
Kentucky’s statewide reform program. PEP looks for a
commitment to improving rural schooling conditions
and an appreciation of Kentucky’s rural culture; it also
screens for a belief in the capacity of every student to
achieve Kentucky’s academic standards.
RECRUITMENT
The starting place for attracting good candidates, as
well as for dissuading those not qualified, is the recruit-
ment process. Program directors spoke of beginning a
Tested Recruiting Strategies:›› Market in places where you are most
likely to find the ideal program candi-dates (e.g., relevant conferences, publi-cations, local media);
›› Use word-of-mouth (e.g., current par-ticipants’ connections and networks);
›› Expand outreach through partnerships with related organizations (e.g., local colleges, teacher unions, community youth centers); and
›› Seek nominations from other respected leaders (e.g., superintendents, princi-pals, curriculum supervisors).
14
FIGURE 4. New Leaders for New Schools Candidate Selection Criteria
New Leaders for New Schools Selection Criteria (listed alphabetically)
1. Belief in the Potential of All Children to Excel Academically
• Believe each and every child can excel academically
• Take personal responsibility for ensuring high academic achievement for every child
• Demonstrate the personal drive and commitment to eliminate the disparity of educational quality that exists
2. Commitment to Ongoing Learning
• Seek feedback and reflect on experiences to grow and develop
• Demonstrate humility and willingness to continually improve
• Commit to the coaching and the development of adults
3. Communication and Listening
• Possess written and verbal skills to communicate with clarity, conciseness, and appropriateness to multiple audiences
• Demonstrate poise and professionalism in diverse situations
• Listen actively
4. Interpersonal Skills• Build successful one-on-one relationships
• Value each person’s perspective and treat people with respect
• Relate to adults and children: understand where they are coming from, what they need, and how to meet their needs
• Diffuse anger and find common ground to move people towards solutions
• Exhibit confidence and competence under pressure
5. Knowledge of Teaching and Learning.
• Identify exemplary teaching
• Provide feedback and guidance to improve instructional strategies
• Enable students to attain results despite significant challenges
6. Problem Solving • Work proactively to solve problems and reach effective solutions
• Analyze and diagnose complex issues to develop strategic plan
• Identify concrete outcomes as a way to evaluate results
7. Project Management to Deliver Results
• Articulate a clear vision, set agenda, and implement goals
• Select, prioritize, and communicate strategies effectively to reach goals
• Balance day-to-day tasks and urgent needs with progress towards goals
• Delegate decision-making and authority in responsible manner
8. Self-Awareness• Identify accurately personal strengths and areas for development
• Demonstrate integrity by acting in a manner that consistently reflects stated values and beliefs
• Understand how you are perceived by and impact others
9. Team Building• Collaborate effectively• Read group dynamics accurately
• Mobilize adults to take action and hold them accountable for reaching common goals
• Engage and empower others to take responsibility in decision-making to achieve results
10. Unyielding Focus on Goals and Results
• Confront difficult situations head-on and implement diverse solutions to get results
• Achieve results despite obstacles by demonstrating persistence, determination, and relentless drive
• Exhibit resilience to persevere and overcome setbacks
• Take personal responsibility for finding solutions when faced with challenges
• Be decisive and hold people to core values when it counts
15 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
year ahead of their start dates to publicize and pro-
mote the opportunity. Chicago’s LAUNCH, for example,
issued 3,200 brochures in November 2003 to spread
the word to prospective 2004 participants about what
the program is, who might qualify for admission, and
where the application could be found online. New Jer-
sey’s EXCEL relies largely on word-of-mouth generated
by its graduates, but also recruits via the publications
of its parent organization, a statewide principals and
supervisors association.
New Leaders for New Schools targets its marketing
and recruitment in hopes of attracting not just those
currently working in a school system, but also those
who have led community organizations, nonprofits,
and youth development programs. It utilizes an execu-
tive search-style approach of creating local, regional,
and national networks. As a result, more than half of
the new leaders are considered “nontraditional” in that
they were from outside the public school systems with
which New Leaders works, although all participants
have strong K–12 experience. For its first 150 fellow-
ships, New Leaders received over 2,600 applications
representing a selection rate of 6 percent.
Several programs, such as LAUNCH and PEP, seek
nominations from school or district administrators. In
Cleveland, participants are handpicked by participating
superintendents based on their perceived potential as
schools leaders or, in the case of assistant principals or
officially designated teacher-leaders, their actual per-
formance. Program staff report that this recruitment
approach has the added bonus of sending a message
that the districts value the capacity development of
their own staff.
THE SCREENING PROCESS
Each program has structured a clearly defined and multi-
phased process for screening applicants. The first phase
may be the application itself, designed in some cases to
help ensure that candidates self-select based on rigor-
ous criteria. Succeeding phases involve interviews and,
in some programs, performance assessments.
In New Leaders, the application is a weeding tool. It de-
fines criteria (e.g., skills in project management, commu-
nication, listening, relationship-building) and requires
would-be candidates to answer 14 complex ques-
tions designed to reveal how well their backgrounds,
An Effective Selection Process:›› Defines the ideal program candidate
and establishes application require-ments that reflect that ideal;
›› Screens applicants using criteria that reflect the vision and the application requirements;
›› Uses multiple measures such as inter-views, on-demand writing, performance tasks, observations, and assessment rubrics to select participants;
›› Takes place over multiple days to evaluate the candidate in a variety of contexts; and
›› Involves multiple assessors with a variety of perspectives, knowledge, and experiences.
16
experiences, and personal qualities meet the crite-
ria. Similarly, Chicago and Boston applicants receive
prompting questions for which they must develop essay
responses that are scored by program teams.
In most programs, the screening process is followed by
an interview phase. The most intensive and elaborate
of these is New Leaders. The roughly 50 percent of ap-
plicants who make it through the first screening must
then participate in a second screening that includes an
hour-long interview with two staff members and re-
quires applicants to produce a written analysis of a case
study. About half of the applicants are successful. These
individuals then go on to a full-day interview with staff
and program mentors, which includes role-playing and
the evaluation of a simulated classroom lesson.
In Boston, teams of principals, teacher-leaders, district
administrators, and higher education faculty interview
candidates, who are also rated on a performance as-
sessment in which they are asked to conduct a teacher
observation and assessment at a designated school.
Chicago uses a similar panel approach (theirs consists
of principals, administrators, and staff from North-
western University) for interviewing the 30 percent
of candidates who make it past the initial application
screening. New Jersey’s screening requires candidates
to formally present a professional portfolio, complete
a writing sample that includes a statement of their
educational philosophy and personal vision for school
leadership, and respond to problem-based scenarios.
Design a Meaningful, Relevant ProgramFor all these programs, six key elements help to ensure
an experience that is meaningful for candidates and
relevant to the needs of their students and schools:
1) knowledgeable, committed leadership within a
partnership structure; 2) a standards-based cur-
riculum incorporating clear performance indicators;
3) instructional design based on adult learning theory;
4) an intensive, focused induction; 5) a supportive co-
hort structure; and 6) a school-based practicum, in-
volving expert mentors.
CREATE A PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE
All of the programs studied operate as partnerships be-
tween a school district or multiple school jurisdictions
and other entities, notably universities and founda-
tions. Such partnerships often support the initial costs
of program staffing, design, and development, and they
contribute to the program’s long-term sustainability.
Cleveland’s First Ring Leadership Academy, for exam-
ple, is led by a collaboration of the 13 school districts
that encircle the city. Their superintendents, working in
partnership with Cleveland State University, launched
the academy in response to the critical shortage and
high turnover of qualified principals in their districts.
Figure 5 is the interview guide that academy staff used
to identify the superintendents’ program priorities.
Each superintendent commits to identifying two or
more promising leaders for each academy cohort and
supporting them through the academy, then sharing
the pool of academy graduates across First Ring dis-
tricts to fill principal vacancies. The university is com-
mitted to customizing the program for participants and
making personalized services and resources available to
them so that they have every opportunity to become
effective school leaders.
The New Leaders national team is a diverse mix of social
entrepreneurs and leaders from education, business,
17 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
FIGURE 5. Interview Guide to Identify First Ring Superintendents’ Priorities
18
and public policy. They staff a program that operates as
a partnership of five metropolitan school districts—in
New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Memphis,
and the San Francisco Bay Area—and several of the na-
tion’s leading venture philanthropists. Further support
comes in the form of strategic consultancy from the
Monitor Group, a leading strategy firm, and pro bono
legal assistance from Kirkland and Ellis, a major New
York City law firm. New Leaders provides the framework
for public and private sector leaders to join together
and commit time and resources to transforming public
school leadership.
Boston’s and Chicago’s district-based programs also
benefit from partnerships. Boston’s operates as a col-
laboration of the Boston Public Schools and the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts. Chicago’s LAUNCH is operated
by the Chicago Principals and Administrators Associa-
tion in collaboration with Chicago Public Schools and
Northwestern University. NJ EXCEL partners with the
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association and
the Association’s Foundation for Educational Admin-
istration. Kentucky’s PEP is a dynamic partnership be-
tween the Pike County School District, a deeply rural
Appalachian community, and the University of Ken-
tucky in Lexington.
DEVELOP A STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM
Across all six programs, standards guide the struc-
ture and sequence of the leadership curriculum and
establish indicators of effective practice. In each case
the curriculum derives from local- or state-adopted
performance-based standards, such as the New Jer-
sey Professional Standards for School Leaders. All of
them delineate what school leaders need to know
and be able to do at various points in their careers,
and all of them draw from the Interstate School
Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards de-
veloped by the Council of Chief State School Officers
in 1996.9
In each case, overarching leadership standards are
integrated with the specific kinds of knowledge and
skills the particular program was founded to develop.
Boston, for example, focuses on effective practices as
defined by Boston’s six Essentials of Whole School Im-
provement (see figure 6), which emphasize principals’
need to deeply understand instruction and organize the
entire school enterprise to improve student learning.
Likewise, New Leaders focuses on 12 essential compe-
tencies that reflect research on the practices of urban
school principals who have successfully turned around
low-performing schools. Chicago’s program is guided
by the seven leadership proficiencies in that district’s
educational improvement plan.
The First Ring Leadership Academy (FRLA) in Cleve-
land developed its curriculum by identifying and
prioritizing the recurring and challenging issues and
concerns that the next generation of leaders will en-
counter in the schools FRLA serves. From a priority-
setting process that used a focus group consisting of
a cross section of district and community leaders, five
persistent leadership challenges emerged as critical:
increasing student diversity; parent and community
involvement; communication; legislation and poli-
tics; and the need to balance priorities. FRLA then
cross-checked these five themes with the ISLLC stan-
dards to ensure that they were embedded in all learn-
ing experiences. The end result is a curriculum scope
that integrates FRLA contextual issues with the ISLLC
standards and indicators.
19 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
BASE THE INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ON ADULT LEARNING THEORY
The structure and focus of the instructional part of each
program varies, but each involves a combination of
coursework and fieldwork, and each is organized around
a cohort and small groups. This approach is in keeping
with adult learning theory, which holds that significant
learning results from experiences that allow adults to:
1) engage with meaningful content; 2) socially process
the information; and 3) construct their own meaning
through a self-regulated process.
BEGIN WITH AN INTENSIVE AND HIGHLY FOCUSED INDUCTION EXPERIENCE
Most of the programs initiate candidates with a rigor-
ous induction experience designed to help participants
develop a strong conceptual framework for under-
standing—and later applying—a deep knowledge of the
leadership theory that drives the program. Whether it is
a summer residency or an accelerated course sequence,
these experiences demand an intense commitment,
leading candidates to describe them variously as a
“drop-everything-else dedication” and “the most chal-
lenging and powerful learning experience I’ve ever had.”
They serve multiple purposes, including testing a partici-
pant’s commitment and drive to take on the challenging
role of being a fully invested and effective school leader
and arming candidates with the conceptual knowledge
and informational resources that they will need on the
job. In effect, these induction experiences serve as a
final screening. Participants who cannot or do not want
to make such a commitment opt out.
The New Leaders program, which aims to equip par-
ticipants to be catalysts of urban change, starts with
a six-week summer institute at the Wharton School of
Management in Philadelphia where the group focuses
on developing instructional, transformational, and op-
erational leadership skills. At this early stage, bonding
FIGURE 6. Boston Public Schools’ Essentials of Whole School Improvement
Six Essentials of Whole School Improvement
Essential 1: Effective instructional practice and a collaborative school climate lead to improved student learning.
Essential 2: Student work and data drive instruction and professional development.
Essential 3: Investments in professional development improve instruction.
Essential 4: Shared leadership sustains instructional improvement.
Essential 5: Resource use supports instructional improvement and improved student learning.
Essential 6: Schools partner with families and community to support student learning.
20
and network-building are valuable natural outcomes.
Chicago holds a five-week summer leadership academy
at Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School
of Management, emphasizing instructional leadership.
Skills are built around the school district’s principal
leadership competencies, including creating a student-
centered climate, improving teaching and learning,
and increasing parent involvement and community
partnerships. During this beginning phase, the fellows
in the program have opportunities to build an “urban
network” that offers networking connections for fel-
lows throughout their careers.
NJ EXCEL initiates candidates during a demanding two-
week summer residency. This expedited learning experi-
ence introduces candidates to the rigorous theory- and
research-based curriculum and the action-research
projects they will be expected to complete. At this
point, candidates also begin to assess their knowledge
and skills against specific standards and criteria.
DEVELOP A SUPPORTIVE COHORT STRUCTURE
All programs use a cohort group structure and all re-
port that participants find cohort interactions to be
the most valuable element of the program. Cohorts
allow participants to proceed through the program
with the safety and support of a learning community.
Members of the cohort construct meaning and make
sense of new contexts by comparing experiences, and
they generalize theories of action by sharing individ-
ual successes and failures. In short, over the course
of their time together, they adopt new identities, in
essence “becoming” principals. Together, they evolve
from teacher or other professional into an account-
able educational leader who knows how to manage
a school and improve teaching and learning. Far from
disbanding at program completion, the cohort tends
to be an ongoing source of support as people progress
in their careers.
In the Principals Excellence Program, the cohort of
approximately 15 is a uniquely defined community
of learners that remains intact throughout the entire
program year. Early and ongoing community-build-
ing strategies help to create a sense that the cohort
is a safe haven for problem solving and brainstorming.
Boston’s fellows report that this kind of ongoing in-
teraction led them to recognize the expertise of their
colleagues and allowed them to benchmark their own
progress with that of other cohort members.
Cleveland’s program puts a premium on developing
trust and reliance among cohort members as a means
of creating a strong network of new leadership within
the 13 First Ring school districts. The expectation is that
cohort members will sustain and support each other
as they begin and continue through their careers as
school principals, directors, and superintendents.
New Jersey’s cohort structure develops collegiality, col-
laboration, and peer support as candidates engage in a
range of program activities. All candidates participate
in regional inquiry groups, which meet regularly and
continually communicate online to discuss readings,
problem-based activities, and day-to-day challenges.
Members of each regional inquiry group also support
one another with peer reviews and feedback related to
action research and school-based projects. Each group
works with an “e-mentor” who facilitates the group’s
activities and serves as its primary advisor. (See figure 7
for a description of e-mentor responsibilities.)
21 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
FIGURE 7. NJ EXCEL e-Mentor Responsibilities
e-MENTOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Communication
• Plans minimum of 18 hours face-to-face Inquiry Group meetings scheduled at time/site by the group
• Conducts ongoing communication with candidates using NJ-EXCEL’s On-Line Learning Community
(e-mail, Discussion Board, Instant Messenger)
• Conducts additional individual/group meetings as needed at discretion of candidates and e-Mentor
Coordinating and Guiding Inquiry Group Meetings and Other Ongoing Activities
• Extends discussions from cohort seminars on critical topics and tasks
• Conducts discussions of research and readings
• Conducts problem-based and critical analysis activities (case studies, in-basket activities, simulations, ect.) within group meetings and/or
continuing discussion as Discussion Board activity using NJ EXCEL’s On-Line Learning Community
• Stimulates information sharing and networking activities
• Plans peer reviews that provide feedback to candidates related to their projects and portfolios
• Arranges inter-district activities as appropriate
Providing Individual and Group Guidance, Support, and a Collegial Environment
• Guides ongoing self-assessment, reflection, feedback for development of Professional Growth Plans (PGP)
• Guides development of Action Research and Job-Embedded Projects
• Conducts peer reviews of projects and portfolios to encourage feedback and continuous improvement
Candidate Assessment and Recordkeeping
• Maintains the NJ EXCEL Requirements Checklist for each assigned candidate, submit complete Checklist to NJ EXCEL Coordinator for Research
and Evaluation at end of program • Conducts quarterly reviews of candidates’ portfolios to determine progress toward completion of program requirements:
• Professional Growth Plan (PGP)• Personal Educational Platform (professional philosophy, vision for school leadership, personal professional code of ethics)
• Reflective Journal• Inquiry Group Log• Internship Log• Action Research Project• Action Research Project Presentation
• Job-Embedded Projects• Leadership e-folio• Module Activities
• Completes formal assessment of Action Research Project, Action Research Project Presentation, and Job-Embedded Projects using NJ EXCEL
Rubrics• Completes an e-Mentor Assessment Report at the end of the program that reflects the e-Mentor’s summative assessment
of the candidate’s overall performance
Participation in Other NJ EXCEL Activities
• Attends Candidate Orientation scheduled at beginning of program
• Attends training for NJ EXCEL’s On-Line Learning Community scheduled at beginning of program
• Attends Action Research Project Presentations for Inquiry Group scheduled at end of program
• Attends External Portfolio Reviews scheduled at end of program
• Attendance at 1-2 e-Mentor Organizational Meetings during the year as needed
(Revised February 2004)
22
INCLUDE A SCHOOL-BASED PRACTICUM WITH EXPERT MENTORS
Participants in all six programs identified their fieldwork—
a school-based internship, or residency—as second only
to cohort interactions in effectiveness in engendering
powerful professional learning. In most of the programs,
participants are paired with mentor principals—profes-
sional experts committed to sharing successful practices
and supporting the development of effective new prin-
cipals. These programs use specific practices for iden-
tifying and selecting mentors. Several have published
guidelines for mentoring and require mentor training
that is focused on key instructional components, expec-
tations, and program beliefs and value systems.
In Boston, the residency is the primary framework for
learning. Each fellow has a paid, yearlong residency,
four days a week, with one of Boston’s most effec-
tive principals. As with all of these programs, Boston
puts forth great effort into ensuring that theory and
practice are integrated. Therefore, a course on learning
theory, for example, is coupled with classroom obser-
vations of students and teachers during the residency.
These observations are guided by the mentor principal
to hone the fellows’ skills in understanding students’
learning processes and the instructional strategies
of effective teachers. As one former fellow said, “The
school was my classroom, and my teacher was my
mentor principal. He identified what I needed to know
by having me do the real work, and then he gave me
feedback.” That kind of mentoring helps the fellows
construct meaning from the theory they are learning
in their 70 days of coursework.
Since the fellow-mentor relationship is the linch-
pin of the program, great care is taken to identify
excellent mentors based on demonstrated leadership
and mentoring skills, their schools’ success in imple-
menting the six Essentials of Whole School Improve-
ment, and raising student achievement. Equal care is
then taken in matching a fellow to a mentor.
Chicago’s fellows begin a yearlong paid intern-
ship (again, with exemplary mentor principals)
that includes both an elementary and secondary
experience. Mentor principals are selected through
an application and screening process. They are re-
quired to attend a half-day session at the sum-
mer leadership academy as well as seminars on
coaching and feedback. Fellows and mentors sign
a contract for each site experience—one elemen-
tary and one secondary—that explains each per-
son’s role in working to develop the fellow’s skill in
Chicago’s principal leadership competencies. (See
figure 8 for the mentor contract.)
New Leaders residents enter into a formal yearlong,
full-time relationship with a successful mentor prin-
cipal who shares his or her knowledge and experience
and creates opportunities for the resident to take the
lead in multiple aspects of the urban principal’s role.
The most direct support, however, is provided by a
specially trained leadership coach who visits each
resident and mentor at least once a week. Working
with no more than 10 residents, coaches help struc-
ture the resident-mentor relationship, as well as as-
sist residents in integrating theory from coursework
into their day-to-day leadership challenges. Coaches
are recruited from a pool of outstanding, retired
urban principals, and they undergo their own train-
ing as a cadre in addition to attending the residents’
summer coursework and seminars.
23 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
FIGURE 8. LAUNCH Mentor Contract
24
Build and Sustain Over TimeEach program studied conducts ongoing evaluations
on several levels, using evaluation findings to continu-
ously improve program performance and outcomes in
ways that will help to sustain the program over time.
The progress of each participant is tracked for both for-
mative and summative purposes. Systematic monitor-
ing of overall program effectiveness yields data used to
guide program improvements.
ASSESSING CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE
The intent of candidate assessment in the six programs
is to prepare candidates for success as principals in chal-
lenging schools. Indeed, each sees assessment as a learn-
ing tool. Rather than casting blame when assessment
identifies the need for improvement, this system of in-
telligent accountability rewards learning and continued
effort. The programs also recognize the need for public
accountability, using assessment to verify and validate
candidates’ competency and readiness to take charge in a
real school with the education of real students at stake.
In addition to serving as the foundation of each pro-
gram’s curriculum, the Interstate School Leadership Li-
censure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards provide a frame-
work for assessing candidates’ performance and are the
gauge by which candidates and program staff alike as-
sess a candidate’s professional growth over time. Each
program has contextualized the ISLLC standards and
aligned them with program performance goals. For ex-
ample, NJ EXCEL’s School Leader Standards Framework
includes the six ISLLC standards and adds a seventh for
technological leadership, a key program goal aligned
with Technology Standards for School Administra-
tors. NJ EXCEL inducts candidates into its program by
developing their understanding of the standards-based
requirements, expectations, and performance criteria
against which their success in the program is measured.
At the start of their program experience, candidates
assess themselves against the program’s standards-
based performance indicators. EXCEL then uses data
from those assessments to guide instructional, men-
toring, and coaching efforts. It also publishes for each
cohort group a summary of program requirements, the
timeframe for completing the requirements, a descrip-
tion of the assessments, and an indication of who will
assess their performance. To prepare candidates for
A Successful School Leadership Program:›› Focuses on the program’s vision of an ef-
fective school leader;
›› Uses a standards-based instructional program with clear performance indica-tors and outcome expectations;
›› Designs instruction based on adult-learn-ing theory and personal sense-making;
›› Includes a residency or internship with an exemplary principal and the expectation that the resident will be accountable for instructional leadership responsibilities;
›› Uses a cohort structure and provides frequent opportunities for reflecting on and discussing learning experiences and outcomes; and
›› Personalizes participant learning through close monitoring, coaching, and follow-through support after placement.
25 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
success, EXCEL provides them with exemplars of the
types of work products and performances that have
been judged as meeting the standards and have con-
tributed to effective leadership on the job.
Chicago’s LAUNCH program aspires to develop leaders
capable of transforming ineffective schools into organi-
zations that work for all students. LAUNCH has translated
the ISLLC standards into its own Principal Competencies,
which form the foundation of the program’s standards-
based curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Its five standards and 24 performance indicators rep-
resent the goals that successful LAUNCH candidates
will achieve. To facilitate their success, the program
provides candidates with an assessment tool that they
are expected to monitor throughout their program
experience. To this end, LAUNCH has created a clear
and focused assessment guide with a structure that
lays out its standards and performance indicators in a
page-by-page format. Each page presents one of the
five standards with its related performance indicators,
a description of the indicators at their highest level of
performance, a list of competency-based learning op-
portunities, and a four-stage rubric that describes four
developmental stages of competency (rudimentary,
emerging, competent, and transformative).
That assessment guide enables candidates to continu-
ously assess their progress, and it provides a focus for
coaching and mentoring. Candidates use the feedback
information to develop their own professional growth
plan, and then use that plan as a tool for setting devel-
opmental goals. They document their work in a profes-
sional portfolio that is assessed by LAUNCH staff mem-
bers, coaches, mentors, and others, using a rubric with
which candidates have been familiarized.
Other programs follow a similar process. In Boston,
fellows begin the program by completing a self-as-
sessment on the district’s 11 competencies of effective
principals. Based on this assessment, the fellows work
with their mentors and program staff to develop a per-
sonal learning contract that provides a map for their
first four months. At the end of that period, both fellow
and mentor review the contract, benchmark progress
made toward its goals, and revise or set new goals for
the balance of the program.
When participants begin Kentucky’s PEP, they complete
a comprehensive six-part survey that enables them to
establish baseline data about their leadership skills. It
also asks them to develop their own vision of the kind
of leader they want to be. (Figure 9 displays one page of
the 10-page survey.) The completed survey serves as a
self-assessment and goal-setting tool that participants
can use throughout their PEP experience to monitor
their leadership development.
Every program maintains a rigorous academic gauge
of candidate performance and publishes a grading or
rubric system that is used for assessing the quality of
candidates’ coursework assignments, projects, and oth-
er work products. Most programs use a portfolio system
as a cumulative file of projects, products, assessments,
and observation records that document and verify can-
didates’ professional growth and their readiness to suc-
cessfully assume the role of leader in a difficult school.
ASSESSING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
The most telling data about a program’s performance
are those that portray its ability to reach its goals. In the
case of school leadership preparation programs, data
about the performance of graduates in leadership roles
26
FIGURE 9. Principals Excellence Program Self-Assessment
27 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
will provide a lens for assessing program effectiveness.
Most of the programs in this study are not far enough
along in their development to use this lens. Nonethe-
less, Chicago’s LAUNCH program, which initiated its
first cohort in 1998, is taking a courageous look at stu-
dent performance on standardized tests in the schools
where its graduates are serving as principals. LAUNCH
has compiled five-year profiles of these schools to track
student performance on the district’s mandated stan-
dardized tests from 1999 through 2003. Each year these
schools have made an average gain, with the highest
gains in math. By tracking their graduates using school
performance data, LAUNCH intends to investigate the
relationship between its school leadership preparation
program and improvements in student learning.
In Chicago, a public education fund has supported
several external evaluations of LAUNCH’s progress and
outcomes relative to its goals. Findings indicate that
LAUNCH principals perform more like veteran princi-
pals than their non-LAUNCH counterparts. Indeed, their
leadership actions demonstrate that they understand
the complexities of the principal’s role and are able
to guide instructional improvement from the outset
of their principalship. In addition, findings show that
LAUNCH has been able to recruit and place Latino prin-
cipals, who traditionally have been underrepresented
in Chicago public schools and that LAUNCH graduates
appear to be more active than either other new leaders
or veteran principals in obtaining professional develop-
ment for themselves and their faculties.
Every program in the study relies on many partners
and multiple measures to help evaluate and continu-
ously improve itself. Feedback from candidates and
mentors, as well as candidates’ progress—as evidenced
by their portfolios, for example—help gauge pro-
gram and faculty effectiveness and guide mid-course
and annual improvements. The First Ring Leadership
Academy (FRLA) in Cleveland and PEP in Pike County
use “barometer” surveys and focus groups to help
identify perceptions about program responsiveness
and effectiveness.
FRLA is also partnering with the Batelle Memorial In-
stitute, a third-party evaluator, to establish a program
evaluation protocol that will be used to collect field
data about FRLA’s graduates working in new leadership
positions. The protocol process will collect observational
and interview data that FRLA staff plan to use to iden-
tify program-wide strengths and weaknesses. Batelle
evaluators will also use data collected by Academy
staff, conduct surveys and observations, and establish a
control group of non-participating first-year principals
for comparison purposes.
In keeping with its core philosophy, New Leaders puts
a major emphasis on using data analysis to determine
program effectiveness. Data on candidate success,
for example—during and after the program—provide
feedback on the selection process. The program also
tracks candidate placement rates and monitors stu-
dent achievement results over time in schools led by
program graduates. New Leaders’ strategy of ongoing
assessment ensures the development of outstanding
principals, while also creating key learning to continu-
ously improve the program model and to share with
the field.
New Jersey EXCEL annually evaluates its program de-
sign and effectiveness against six program standards
and related performance rubrics that are aligned
28
FIGURE 10. NJ EXCEL Program Standards and Performance Rubric (page 1 of 2)
29 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Common Features Across the Six Innovative Programs: 6. Candidate selection criteria and screen-
ing process that reflects the vision and the capability of the program;
7. Structuring participant groups into continu-ing cohorts that frequently meet to discuss what they are experiencing and learning about the principal’s job;
8. Authentic learning experiences that incor-porate on-the-job, practical realities of the principal’s work;
9. Frequent structured opportunities for par-ticipants to do personal reflection and per-formance assessment; and
10. Structured program monitoring and assess-ment through feedback, participants’ per-formance in the program, and participants’ success on the job after the program.
1. An initial base of support that includes part-nerships with key stakeholders and funders to finance “start-up” costs of planning, develop-ment, and early implementation;
2. A commitment on the part of program develop-ers to do the extremely hard work of develop-ing, establishing, and implementing the pro-gram over a minimum of three to five years;
3. A research-based vision of what an effective principal does to lead instructional improve-ment and student achievement gains;
4. A focused theory of action about program de-velopment and instructional design based on the vision;
5. School leadership performance standards and outcome assessments aligned with the vision and theory of action;
with national accreditation standards for universities
(see figure 10). The evaluation data are used to make
formative adjustments in the program and they feed in
to EXCEL’s five-year evaluation plan that will report the
program’s long-term effectiveness.
All of the programs have demonstrated a culture of
continuous improvement and professional excellence.
Each defines success differently, but all show relentless
energy in striving to achieve it.
Summary
The six leadership preparation programs in this study
are distinct strategic responses to one underlying crisis:
the pervasive need to identify, recruit, prepare, and
place high-quality principals in our nation’s schools.
While this crisis is most acutely experienced in chal-
lenging urban and rural areas, the problem of an in-
sufficient applicant pool or pipeline of effective school
principals is spreading into every region of the United
States. Without more innovative pathways to leader-
ship certification, the problem is likely to worsen with
40 percent of current school principals eligible for re-
tirement in the very near future.10
Simultaneously, across the country, elected officials,
policymakers, parents, and educators themselves are
pressing schools for higher returns on the public
30
investment. This press for improvement reflects
discontent with the results our schools are yielding
and our understanding that, as a society, we are not
yet meeting our responsibility for ensuring that every
child achieves academic success. A growing body of
research suggests that we will only be able to do that
when we improve the ability of principals to skillfully
remove barriers to learning and put in place condi-
tions for academic success.11
Each program had a unique creative approach that en-
abled it to move beyond traditional structures. Every
program started with a profound belief that what cur-
rently existed was insufficient for meeting the urgent
need. An ability to work both with and around existing
structures, leaving them intact and building relation-
ships with them, allowed the innovative new programs
to gain some footing, then some traction, and, ulti-
mately, make sure-footed progress.
31 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Part II: Program Profiles
Boston Principal Fellowship Program, 33 Boston, Mass.
First Ring Leadership Academy, 37 Cleveland, Ohio
LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and 41 Urban Network for Chicago), Chicago, Ill.
NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification 45 for Educational Leadership), Monroe Township, N.J.
New Leaders for New Schools, 49 New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and San Francisco Bay Area
Principals Excellence Program, 53 Pike County, Ky.
32
33 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Boston Principal Fellowship Program, Boston, Mass.
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
University of Massachusetts, Broad Foundation, U.S. Department of Education
2003 Bachelor’s degree; three years experience in teaching, youth development, or management; pass state licensure exam
(2005) 11(2004) 10
2004Gender: 60% femaleEthnicity: 64% White, 26% African American, 5% Asian Am., 5% Hispanic2005Gender: 70% femaleEthnicity: 70% African American, 20% Hispanic, 10% White
Twelve months that include: five-week summer intensive; yearlong residency; 60 days of coursework; and two years of support following placement.
Initial Principal LicenseOption of MEdOr CAGS from UMASS
In 1995, after analyzing schools that were effective in teach-ing low-income urban students and reviewing the effec-tive-schools literature, Boston came up with six Essentials of Whole School Improvement to guide its own efforts:
›› Essential 1: Effective instructional practice and a collab-orative school climate lead to improved student learning.
›› Essential 2: Student work and data drive instruction and professional development.
›› Essential 3: Investments in professional development improve instruction.
›› Essential 4: Shared leadership sustains instructional improvement.
›› Essential 5: Resource use supports instructional im-provement and improved student learning.
›› Essential 6: Schools partner with families and com-munity to support student learning.
At the heart of Boston Public Schools’ improvement effort is the core belief that leadership is the single most impor-tant factor in bringing about real school change. This belief is manifested in the district’s School Leadership Institute (SLI), developed to recruit, prepare, and support the next generation of Boston’s school leaders. In 2003, SLI launched the Boston Principal Fellowship (BPF) in response to the district’s need for skillful new principals who could “hit the ground running.” SLI also established the New Principal Support System to provide follow-through and coaching for new principals. In
combination, these two programs build a strong, knowledge-able and committed school leadership workforce in Boston’s neediest schools.
The BPF set out to identify, recruit, prepare, place, and sup-port new principals in its most challenging schools and to serve as the district’s preferred pathway to principalship. The first BPF cohort of 10 “fellows” started in June 2003, fol-lowed in June 2004 by a second cohort of 11 fellows. After successfully completing an intensive 12-month experience that integrates theory and practice, candidates may apply for a principal or assistant principal position. Once these begin-ning principals start their new job, the SLI provides two years of support through its new principal support system.
Selection ProcessThe most important step in preparing new principals, stresses the BPF executive director, is to “get the right people on the bus.” Recruiting and screening potential candidates is a carefully structured process. The district ac-tively and broadly recruits candidates through its Web site, through announcements and advertisements in national school leadership journals, local newspapers, and through recommendations from other principals. Word-of-mouth is another reliable source.
The BPF admissions process consists of a written application (including two essays), a performance assessment for semi-finalists, and an interview for finalists.
34
Minimally, applicants must have a bachelor of arts—a master of arts is preferred. In addition, applicants must have:
›› A minimum of three years experience in teaching (any p–16 level), youth development, social work, counsel-ing, or nonprofit or business management;
›› Evidence of experience as a successful leader;
›› Willingness to relocate (if necessary) and commit to working in Boston Public Schools for a minimum of three years following fellowship;
›› The ability and time commitment for immersion in an intense yearlong learning experience that includes some nights and weekends, academic coursework, research, reports, and field-based projects; and
›› Official results from (or proof of registration to take) the Communication and Literacy Skills section of the Massachusetts Test for Educator Licensure.
Applicants who successfully make it through the initial screening participate in an interview with a BPF team look-ing for individuals who: see themselves as lifelong learners; understand the elements of effective instruction; display an ability to think outside the box and be a critical thinker and a complex problem solver; demonstrate good listening skills; exhibit an ability to work as an effective team member; articu-late a personal theory of leadership; demonstrate persistence and follow-through; and display a knowledge of current re-search and literature related to educational leadership.
Screening teams at all stages consist of principals, teacher-leaders, higher education faculty, and Boston Public Schools central office administrators.
Fellows become employees of the Boston Public Schools and receive a full salary and benefits that are comparable to the position they leave in order to participate in the program. In accepting the salary, fellows agree to work in the Boston Public Schools for three years. Upon completing the residency and course requirements, they have the option of receiving a master’s degree or a certificate of advanced graduate studies from the University of Massachusetts–Boston. The cost of this option, estimated at $4,000, is the responsibility of the fellow.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesThe BPF curriculum integrates the theory behind Boston’s six Essentials with the knowledge and skills required to imple-ment them and carry out the pivotal role of instructional leader. The two major program components are a yearlong four-days-a-week residency with one of Boston’s most effec-tive principals—a mentor principal—and 85 days of course-work and seminars. Fellows participate in coursework for five weeks in the summer and one day per week and one weekend per month during their residency experience. The classes take place at the BPS professional development center and are taught by national experts, district leaders with recognized expertise in one or more topics, and faculty from local uni-versities. To help synthesize their learning, fellows are given assignments designed to address real needs in the schools where they work as residents or issues they will face as new principals. For example, one resident developed a weekly training program for new teachers on instructional strategies to accelerate children’s early reading development. They also keep reflective journals, using them in part as a source for questions that can be discussed in the seminars.
Mentor principals are selected because of their demonstrated leadership skills, their schools’ success in implementing the six Essentials and raising student achievement levels, and their skills in and commitment to mentoring. Because a strong match between a fellow and mentor principal is critical to each candidate’s success, pairings are made with great care.
One 2003–04 program participant said, “The school was my classroom, and my mentor principal was my teacher. He iden-tified what I needed to know by having me do the real work, and then he gave me feedback.” This candidate saw the fel-low-mentor relationship as a critical laboratory for testing his emerging theory of leadership: “The most important thing I learned was how to organize and work through groups of adults. That’s how a principal improves the school.”
In addition to the residency, considered by most fellows to be the program’s most significant source of learning and prepa-ration, many program graduates cite their interactions with
35 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
fellow cohort members as another critical element of BPF. They came to recognize the expertise of their colleagues and were able to benchmark their own progress against that of their cohort members.
The program curriculum and residency are designed to engen-der 11 very concrete competencies that Boston has defined as essential to effective school leadership (e.g., understand-ing how children and adults learn). Since each fellow comes to the program with a different set of skills and experiences, candidates start in July by doing a self-assessment related to the competencies. The results are then used to develop an in-dividualized learning plan that guides the first six months of a candidate’s fellowship. The plan outlines specific types of ex-periences and activities that a fellow and his or her mentor will focus on during the residency. Some examples include plan-ning and implementing a parent engagement strategy, leading a faculty meeting to analyze student performance data and identify their instructional implications, and conferencing with a set of parents regarding their child’s learning progress.
In January, the fellow, his or her mentor principal, and the BPF executive director review the candidate’s progress on the learn-ing goals and, based on that assessment, revise or set new goals for the next three months. Fellows also begin to identify their placement goals for the following school year (e.g., principal, assistant principal). In early May, the same trio meets again to review the fellow’s progress and readiness to assume the full responsibility of a principalship. The fellow’s self-assessment and mentor feedback, along with the observations of the BPF executive director, guide decisions regarding the kind of posi-tion a fellow is ready to take on during the next school year.
BPF’s curriculum is organized into a developmental sequence that builds fellows’ understanding of the principles and prac-tices that underlie the BPF Essentials. The content is struc-tured into four “cornerstone” initiatives and one “capstone” initiative, all addressing some number of the competencies, illustrating the interconnection of the Essentials, and inte-grating the coursework and the residency. Collectively, the initiatives provide a continuous, yearlong focus on critical levers for school improvement. Cornerstone and capstone in-structors include principals and other school leaders, higher-education faculty, and community leaders.
As part of the first cornerstone, Analyzing Instruction and Supporting Improvement, fellows observe students and teachers in their classrooms to hone their understanding of students’ learning processes and the instructional strategies of effective teachers. Building on this foundation, they then learn elements of teacher supervision and evaluation and examine how to use these processes as levers for instruc-tional improvement. Finally, through participation in regular “learning walks” both at their residency school and in schools across the city, they become skilled in analyzing instruction in classrooms and schools and in giving feedback that supports improvement in practice.
In the second cornerstone, Family and Community Engage-ment, candidates deepen their understanding of how schools can most effectively partner with parents and the commu-nity and how the principal can lead this effort. Fellows build their understanding of family and community interests by participating in their school’s School Site Council and School Parent Council. Simultaneously, they assume leadership of a team to examine family and community engagement at their school. This builds their skills in research, needs assessment, asset mapping, action-plan development and implementa-tion, working with a diverse population, and facilitating and mobilizing teams.
In the third cornerstone, Leadership and Management, fel-lows deepen their understanding of what a principal does to enhance the learning and achievement of all students. Through coursework and individual learning plans, and by as-suming leadership and closely observing their principal men-tor and school leaders, fellows develop and are expected to demonstrate a deep understanding of how leaders promote core values to shape culture and bring about organizational change. At the same time, through coursework and engage-ment with and analysis of operations, budgets, and the use of other resources, fellows develop and begin to practice a theory of management. This cornerstone culminates in fel-lows developing transition and entry plans to be used when they assume school leadership roles.
The fourth cornerstone, Scaling Up Instructional Improve-ment, focuses on what is required to reach every classroom,
36
every teacher, and every student. Fellows learn the skills required to implement a continuous cycle of improvement, including analyzing and using data on student performance and teacher practice to support improvement; identifying instructional priorities; creating and implementing profes-sional development that supports teachers in addressing instructional priorities; tracking implementation and impact through classroom observations and student performance; and continually refining the cycle in response to data.
The capstone, Leadership and Learning, ties together all of the competencies of effective principals and the four cor-nerstones of the program. Leadership is a specific set of skills introduced through the Leadership and Management corner-stone, as well as the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that cut across all the cornerstones. Fellows’ leadership determines their effectiveness in their residencies and, looking forward, their effectiveness as principals who are able to: create a vision; organize a school around that vision; develop a cul-ture that places students and their learning at the center; create relationships and structures essential to implementing the vision; and hold high expectations for students and staff and support them in reaching the expectations.
In the spring, as fellows complete the program, they meet individually with BPS district administrators and pursue positions for the next school year. Fellows who are hired as principals continue to receive mentoring and coaching sup-port for two years following their placement. Fellows point to this continuing support and the additional support from networking with their cohort members as key elements in their early successes as school leaders.
Key Success FactorsAlthough BPF is in an early stage of development, its impact on BPS is impressive. BPF fellows demonstrate an ability to “hit the ground running” when they become principals—especially in challenging and low-performing schools. As a result of its districtwide school improvement efforts over the last seven years, Boston is realizing steady improvements in student achievement and has made significant progress in closing the achievement gap that exists between black and Hispanic students and white students. The district has been recog-nized nationally for having a coherent and comprehensive
improvement strategy that yields results, most recently as a semi-finalist for the prestigious Broad Prize in education. The district anticipates that BPF will play a significant role in its continuing improvement because of the “ready-to-succeed” principals the program produces. The BPF Program received seed funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Leadership Program and the Broad Foundation that will sus-tain it through 2006. Planning is underway to secure more long-term funding to ensure BPF’s continued contribution to Boston Public Schools.
The BPF model demonstrates how a school district can prepare principals to lead schools through whole school improvement grounded in leadership theory and principles and targeted to the goals of the district. BPF leaders and participants attribute the program’s success to the following key elements:
›› The vision of a new model of school leadership specifically focused on the Boston Public Schools’ six Essentials of Whole School Improvement;
›› A research-based theory of action about effective school leadership;
›› A rigorous, thoughtful screening process to select applicants with the most potential;
›› A strongly held core belief that all children can and will learn when the principals of their schools are effective, knowledgeable instructional leaders;
›› Strong support and leadership from the district superintendent;
›› Understanding of the principal’s pivotal role in whole school improvement;
›› Alignment of program curriculum with state and na-tional leadership standards and performance indicators;
›› Consistent use of data and feedback to strengthen the program;
›› Direct and frequent feedback to fellows from faculty, mentor principals, and BPF staff; and
›› Tight articulation among standards, BPS Essentials, residency, curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
37 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
First Ring Leadership Academy, Cleveland, Ohio
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
Cleveland State University, 13 First Ring Suburbs Consortium school districts, Ohio Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Local Foundation Support
2003 First Ring superintendents nominate participants with teaching credentials who are employed in First Ring Schools and have demonstrated leadership potential
(2004) 26(2003) 26
2004Gender: 62% femaleEthnicity: 70% White, 30% African American
Fifteen months that include 11 2.5-day modules and site-based practice in the interim between sessions.
Principal License2 CSU credits for each 2.5-day module
Cleveland, Ohio, is surrounded by 13 suburbs known as the “First Ring Suburbs,” each struggling with the same issues fac-ing large urban core cities: poverty, transiency, violence, un-deremployment, and achievement gaps aligned along racial lines and diversity. In 2002–03, the 13 school districts in this First Ring reported a 25 percent turnover in school principals. This crisis, along with other negative trends, such as the det-rimental effects of high student mobility and low overall test scores, inspired the creation of the First Ring School Super-intendents’ Collaborative. The superintendents’ most urgent concern was a shortage of principals. After exploring several options, they concluded that the most promising solution would be to identify principal candidates from within their own districts: highly skilled teacher-leaders who, with ap-propriate training and support, could rise to the challenge of leading the change and innovation necessary to reverse the effects of high student mobility and poverty, to utilize student diversity as a resource, and to close the achievement gap.
In 2003, districts in the Collaborative joined forces with Cleveland State University’s College of Education to create the First Ring Leadership Academy as an accelerated route to principal licensure and certification. The academy’s mission is to recruit, train, and retain school leaders capable of meet-ing challenges unique to First Ring school districts, thereby increasing regional capacity for educational leadership and school reform. Its program is built around a belief system that sees the principal as key to creating school environments where all children are learning all of the time. The three driv-ing beliefs of the academy are that great schools are places where every child learns and achieves at high levels; that it
takes a great principal to lead a great school and make things happen; and that the most fundamental work of a principal is to improve instruction and create a learning environment where each child is a high achiever.
Selection ProcessSuperintendents in the First Ring school districts identify and nominate candidates to apply to the academy. Each is judged to possess “the raw talent to become a high-quality leader.” Once nominated, candidates complete a formal application process and are screened for admission by the Acceptance Committee, which includes representative superintendents from the First Ring districts and members of Cleveland State University’s Education Administration faculty. The academy accepts candidates by cohort group. Each cohort of 26 in-cludes two to three candidates nominated by each of the 13 districts. Participating superintendents say that this process sends a strong message throughout their districts that there is a deep internal capacity among staff to take on challeng-ing leadership roles. In some districts, staff interest and ca-pacity is great enough that superintendents have generated candidate waiting lists. To be admitted to the academy, each nominee must make a three-year commitment to stay in the First Ring Suburbs when joining the program.
A key part of the application process is the requirement that candidates articulate a personal theory of action regarding school leadership. The selection criteria identify candidates with a strong understanding of the challenges facing First Ring schools and a commitment to accept those challenges and transform low-performing schools into places where all
38
students can meet high standards. The screening panel in-cludes university faculty, First Ring district administrators, funders, and academy staff.
Those who are ultimately chosen to participate in the program have been deemed most likely to become strong instructional leaders who can meet the needs of First Ring schools. Most candidates have a master’s degree in education, and some have a doctoral degree.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesA guiding theory of leadership informs all aspects of the pro-gram: an effective leader is a change agent who guides a school community toward improved instruction so that all students achieve at high levels. As the executive director as-serts, “Excellent leaders stir the imagination so that others can see a new way to do things. Excellent leaders communi-cate a new model that inspires action.”
Candidates are released from teaching to participate in 11 two-and-a-half-day training modules over a 15-month period. Each module emphasizes a different aspect of ef-fective school leadership, and taken together, their scope and sequence lead to a developmental understanding of a school principal’s core work: social justice; instructional im-provement; curriculum articulation; teacher supervision and growth; communication; change theory; the use of technol-ogy to improve instruction and meet student needs; school oversight and management; parent and family involvement; and community development. Most training sessions take place on the Cleveland State University campus.
Academy candidates take on authentic site-based projects in the interim between each module. Such projects include supervising and coaching teachers, writing teacher perfor-mance reviews, organizing a parent group to accomplish a specific goal, and developing a site-specific teacher develop-ment training. During each interim period, candidates receive coaching and guidance from their districts’ liaison. They also spend time shadowing and observing the principal, recording journal reflections on their observations, and participating in routine management tasks.
While focusing on the core work of a school principal, the coursework also includes time for discussing journal ob-servations and site-based projects in relation to the mod-ule content. Cohort members point to these interweaving discussions as their most enduring learning experiences. They also state that building their cohort network during these sessions extends their learning because they call on one another for peer coaching and advice.
Participants generate a portfolio based on the projects and tasks they complete so that they can subsequently share their work with employers. The portfolio is also used for assessing candidate achievement in the program. Candi-dates are also required to create a Capstone Presentation about a successful project and what they learned from it, and then present it at an annual leadership conference they are responsible for planning.
Academy staff facilitate ongoing cohort networking activities in which candidates have opportunities to share with and learn from one another beyond their initial 15-month program.
Key Success Factors The First Ring Leadership Academy had received strong lo-cal philanthropic support. Although the program is less ex-pensive than traditional pathways to certification, it does have tuition fees, which go directly to the university. The First Ring districts support the program by providing release time to candidates.
To understand the impact of the program over time, First Ring has instituted a long-term assessment plan. An indepen-dent research organization will be evaluating the academy’s content and structures in addition to establishing a control group of non-participating, first-year principals. Essentially, the assessment will determine whether or not the academy’s non-traditional, standards-based program has created skilled leaders for First Ring schools.
According to anecdotal evidence, the academy has already added value in the districts. The executive director of the academy reports that teachers in the First Ring schools are
39 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
now using different instructional models reflective of the learning of academy graduates.
The First Ring Leadership Academy staff and faculty have identified the following key factors as contributing to their success so far:
›› The commitment to build authentic relationships with all of the stakeholders;
›› The collaboration and support of the First Ring super-intendents;
›› The vision of an excellent principal as a change agent that focuses the curriculum and program experiences for candidates;
›› The enduring belief that every child can achieve high standards;
›› The recognition that an effective, knowledgeable in-structional leader understands the instructional process that ensures that every child meets high standards;
›› The understanding that adult learners are most suc-cessful when learning experiences are authentic and relate to their actual work demands;
›› A well-designed, developmental curriculum that builds and reinforces an understanding of the core work of the principal; and
›› The use of portfolios as the means of assessing candi-date progress.
40
41 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago), Chicago, Ill.
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
Chicago Public Schools (CPS), Chicago Principals & Administrators Association, Chicago Public Educa-tion Fund, Northwestern University
1998 Master’s degree; Illinois Type 75 Administrative Credential; six years teaching experience; previous leadership
(2004) 21 2003Gender: 76% femaleEthnicity: 44% African American, 28% Hispanic, 28% White
Twelve months that include: 4-week summer institute, 10 full-day professional development classes; 5-day case study project; 2 (fall and spring) retreats; yearlong full-time internship.
Illinois Administrators Academy recertification hours
Like many large urban school districts, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) faces a shortage of well-qualified principals. But the need for quality leadership is made even more press-ing by the district’s ambitious improvement plan, Every Child, Every School. “Our goal,” says CPS’s chief executive officer, is “to make every Chicago public school a school of choice, and by that I mean that it must be a school that families of every income choose to attend, no matter what the obstacles or challenges.” A core strategy for achieving that goal is to en-sure that an effective principal guides every school.
Begun in 1998, the Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago’s aspiring principals—LAUNCH*—is one of five professional development programs created under the aegis of the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association and operating as part of the Chicago Leadership Academies for Supporting Success (CLASS). CLASS seeks to develop leaders who embody the knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, and aspirations needed to pilot Chicago’s schools to increased student achievement. Three of the programs provide profes-sional development for principals at a different point on the experience continuum: aspiring, beginning, experienced. The fourth helps principals and other CPS leaders meet legislated requirements for professional development.
LAUNCH is guided by an executive director and a direc-tor—both recognized as exemplary principals—who provide direct, hands-on leadership for all program components: marketing, recruiting, selection, program development, cur-riculum design, follow-through with fellows, and assessment and evaluation. Their vision, shared by CLASS and supported by CPS, is having a highly qualified principal in every Chicago public school ready to lead that school to high achievement by continuously improving teaching and learning so that ev-ery child realizes his or her educational potential.
Selection ProcessMarketing and recruitment activities seek to draw strong as-sistant principals, teacher-leaders and other promising indi-viduals who meet the requirements. LAUNCH asks current principals and other administrators to nominate applicants who have demonstrated leadership potential. In addition, during its most recent recruitment campaign, LAUNCH sent 3,200 brochures to attract prospective applicants.
LAUNCH eligibility requirements include a master’s degree in education, at least six years of experience as a teacher, an Illinois Type 75 Administrative Certificate in Supervision and Administration, and some prior leadership experience. Beginning in November 2003, the program posted its online application and requirements on the CLASS Web site. Ap-plicants must submit a completed application packet by the date specified for a particular cohort.
* LAUNCH is one of three preparation programs chosen by CPS to ready principals for district schools. The other two are the Univer-sity of Illinois at Chicago and New Leaders for New Schools, which is also featured in this guide.
42
A careful screening process by program directors and mentor principals seeks to identify the best possible candidates. The process considers a range of factors: thoroughness of appli-cation; coherence of ideas; recommendations for leadership potential; self-awareness; passion for improving student learning; and knowledge of leadership and school improve-ment and of instructional improvement research and litera-ture. About 30 percent of applicants move forward to the interview process.
LAUNCH staff invite selected candidates to participate in panel interviews with three-person teams of experienced principals, administrators and representatives from the foundation community. Building on the application analy-ses, these probing interviews focus on candidates’ ability to clearly state personal theory of leadership; self-awareness; passion for improving student learning; understanding of how to work through adults to achieve school improvement; knowledge and ability to articulate instructional improve-ment strategies; and ability to work as an effective team member. Also considered is the coherence and articulateness of candidates’ verbal responses.
As a result of the 2004–05 application process, which began in November 2003, 21 candidates were accepted for the pro-gram out of an applicant pool of 175.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesLAUNCH fellows participate in a rigorous educational pro-gram designed to accelerate, intensify, and deepen the knowledge, skills, and experience of principal candidates. It includes three integrated components: a Summer Leadership Academy, a yearlong internship, and the Urban Network.
The Leadership Academy is a five-week intensive pro-gram at the James L. Allen Center of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management on the campus of Northwestern University. Fellows benefit from the expertise of LAUNCH staff, faculty from the Kellogg Center, and nationally rec-ognized researchers, authors, leaders, and educators from across the country and Canada. (The Kellogg Center pro-vides its faculty and conference facilities to LAUNCH at no
cost.) Fellows spend their first and last weeks on campus to develop a community of practice that will sustain their collegial interdependence.
The academy curriculum is aligned to seven leadership pro-ficiencies directly related to Chicago’s Educational Improve-ment Plan, Every Child, Every School: school leadership; parent involvement and community partnerships; creating a student-centered learning climate; professional development and human resource management; instructional leadership (improving teaching and learning); school management and daily operations; and interpersonal effectiveness.
Fellows assess themselves on these proficiencies, using a rating system that includes Mastery, Competency, Learn-ing, and No Experience. Based on this self-assessment, they create their own professional growth plan, which is used to guide the apprenticeship experience and to assess progress throughout participation in the program.
After completing the summer academy, LAUNCH fellows begin a semester-long, full-time paid apprenticeship, work-ing with mentor principals recognized throughout CPS as extraordinarily successful leaders. (Mentor principals, se-lected through an application and screening process, attend the Summer Leadership Academy and Mentor Seminars on coaching and feedback.) During the apprenticeship, funded by the district, each fellow completes both an elementary and a secondary experience.
For each site experience, fellows and mentor principals com-plete an apprenticeship contract that clearly delineates each person’s responsibilities and roles. Fellows work to address proficiencies identified in their self-assessment and they maintain a portfolio that documents the planning and com-pletion of pertinent proficiencies. During the apprenticeship, the group of fellows meets monthly for a full-day seminar with the LAUNCH staff and other members of the summer academy faculty.
Finally, the Urban Network provides ongoing professional development, support, and networking opportunities for LAUNCH fellows. The network is a dynamic and vibrant so-cial structure that sustains fellows’ commitment to LAUNCH
43 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
goals, serving as a source of accurate information, expertise, assistance, and collegial interactions. It brings together fel-lows across all cohorts to participate in two-day seminar re-treats each quarter—two at the Kellogg Center and others in similar conference settings. Fellows also participate in other events, such as issues meetings, career forums, and reunion dinners. The strength and liveliness of the Urban Network distinguishes LAUNCH from other principal preparation pro-grams because it is a continuing source of professional sup-port throughout the careers of its graduates. It also publishes an online newsletter that keeps fellows connected to one another and provides them with information updates, meet-ing schedules, and a resource directory.
Fellows graduate in June following their year-long appren-ticeship, and are then eligible to apply for school leadership positions in Chicago schools. Fellows make a commitment to stay with the Chicago Public Schools for four years following their involvement in LAUNCH.
Success FactorsOver 188 individuals have completed the program, and of those, 65 currently serve as principals, while 64 are assistant principals. Because of the strong connection between LAUNCH and CPS’s Every Child, Every School improvement strategy, CPS continues to support the program financially. Since 1999, CPS has invested over $4.8 million in LAUNCH. Other LAUNCH funding partners have included the Chicago Public Education Fund ($545,000 since 2000), the John D. and Catherine T. Ma-cArthur Foundation, and Northwestern University.
LAUNCH aspires to develop transformational leaders ca-pable of turning ineffective schools into successful orga-nizations that work for all students. It has translated the ISLLC standards into its own Principal Competencies, which form the foundation of the program’s standards-based cur-riculum, instruction, and assessment. The five standards and 24 performance indicators represent the goals that successful candidates will achieve. To facilitate candidates’ success, LAUNCH provides candidates with a self-assess-ment tool they are expected to utilize throughout their program experience. To support its use, LAUNCH has created
an assessment guide that lays out its five standards and 24 performance indicators in a page-by-page format. Each page includes one of the five standards, its performance indicators, a description of each indicator at the highest performance level, a list of competency-based learning op-portunities, and a four-stage rubric that describes develop-mental stages of competency, from rudimentary to transfor-mative. This document enables candidates to continuously assess their progress, and it also provides a focus for coach-ing and mentoring. Candidates use this feedback to develop a professional growth plan, and then use that plan as a tool for setting developmental goals. Candidates document their work in a professional portfolio that is assessed by LAUNCH staff members, coaches, mentors and others, using a rubric that is well known to the candidates.
Several external evaluations have reported the progress and outcomes of LAUNCH in relation to its goals. The Chicago Pub-lic Education Fund supported several studies by the Consor-tium of Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Early data suggest that LAUNCH principals perform at higher levels of effectiveness than their counterparts, have a deeper understanding of the school district’s improvement plan, and are more effective in aligning their school improvements with the district’s goals. Anecdotal data from district administra-tors describe LAUNCH principals as being able to step into the principalship and begin solving problems like a veteran.
The Broad Foundation selected LAUNCH as a showcase pro-gram in its benchmarking study. Broad plans to hold a two-day conference to highlight the findings of the study to allow other districts to learn from the knowledge and experiences of Chicago and then, with Broad support, accelerate the use of that knowledge to increase gains in student achievement by increasing the level and quality of school leadership.
One 1999–2000 fellow said she takes pride in being able to identify herself as “a LAUNCH leader” because the program’s reputation is that it produces well-trained principals. She stated that the best thing about the program is, “Once you finish, you’re not really finished. You always come back. As a principal, I’m always [facing dilemmas] that have no clear answers. If I have a problem or a question, I can call other
44
principals from my cohort and we pool our expertise [to resolve the issue].”
LAUNCH staff and participants cite the following factors as key to the success of the program:
›› A vision of a new model of school leadership focused on instructional improvement and student learning;
›› A strongly held core belief that all children can and will learn when the principals of their schools are effective, knowledgeable instructional leaders;
›› An authentic, research-based, job-embedded curriculum;
›› Attention to adult learning conditions and personal-ized professional development plans;
›› Alignment of the curriculum with state and local leadership standards and performance indicators;
›› Consistent use of data and feedback to strengthen the program;
›› Direct and frequent feedback to candidates from faculty, field supervisors, and mentors; and
›› Tight articulation among standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
45 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership), Monroe Township, N.J.
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
N.J. Principal and Supervisors Association, Foundation for Educa-tion Administration, N.J. State Action for Educational Leadership Project (Wallace), N.J. Department of Education
2003 Master’s degree; five years teaching experience; requirements specific to four different models
(2005) 100(2004) 109(2003) 66
2004Gender: 76% femaleEthnicity: 83% White, 8% African American, 8% Hispanic, 1% Asian Am.
Twelve, 15, or 18 months that include: yearlong internship; instruction in summer, weeknights and Saturdays—225 hours (Model 1), 285 hours (Model 2), 350 hours (Model 3), 105 hours (Model 4 field-based internship).
Certificate of Eligibility for Principal (Models 1 and 2), Certificate for Supervisor and Principal (Model 3), Certificate for School Administrator (super-intendent) Model 4 (American Council on Education)
New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership (NJ EXCEL) emerged as a response to the shortage of highly qualified principal applicants across the state. Surveys of dis-trict superintendents conducted by the New Jersey Depart-ment of Education (NJDOE) in February 2001 found that 70 percent of the superintendents reported difficulty in filling principal positions with qualified candidates. Not surprisingly, shortages were more acute in districts with many low-per-forming schools. The NJDOE survey also identified a serious lack of diversity among the highly qualified candidates.
In response to the crises in number and quality of principal applicants, the New Jersey Principal and Supervisors Associa-tion (NJPSA) and its nonprofit Foundation for Educational Ad-ministration (FEA) created a broad-based initiative of related strategies entitled “The 3 Rs for School Leadership: Recruit, Retain, and Revitalize.” NJ EXCEL, part of a continuum of pro-grams run by the FEA, focuses on recruitment and prepara-tion of high-quality school leaders. However, before NJ EXCEL could be initiated as an alternative pathway to certification, some legislative barriers needed to be addressed.
In April 2001, NJPSA submitted a proposal to NJDOE request-ing revisions in the New Jersey Administrative Code that would authorize an expedited alternative to the traditional university-based master’s degree required for principal cer-tification, allowing entities other than institutions of higher education to provide a principal certification program. NJDOE approved the revisions in May 2002. The FEA then initiated the
first NJ EXCEL cohort in January 2003. The program’s mission is to increase, diversify, and improve the caliber of the school leader candidate pool in New Jersey by providing innovative, high-quality preparation in expedited pathways to certifica-tion for supervisor, principal, and school administrator.
Five core beliefs guide all of NJ EXCEL’s work:
›› All children can and must learn;
›› School leadership and the quality of teaching are the two most critical factors in the improvement of student learning, and they are inextricably linked;
›› Effective school leadership is the key to an individual school’s success and to maximizing learning for all students;
›› As the school’s instructional leader, it is the principal who sets the tone, creates an environment that guides and supports learning for all those in the school community, and ultimately has the greatest impact on student performance; and
›› It is the superintendent who sets the tone and direc-tion for the district and supports the schools in their efforts to continuously improve teaching and learning for all students.
Selection ProcessRecruiting participants for NJ EXCEL takes place in several ways. The most productive approach is through word-of-
46
mouth by current and previous candidates. Colleague-to-colleague marketing is attracting most new applicants. NJ EXCEL also recruits through the publications of its parent organization. A third recruitment approach now emerging as a good source involves superintendents: They are iden-tifying teacher-leaders in their district and supporting their participation in NJ EXCEL with tuition and release time for coursework and internships. The program is developing ad-ditional recruitment strategies to identify and attract appli-cants from underrepresented groups.
Most NJ EXCEL participants self-select into the program; however, a formal application and selection process ensures that all candidates meet established criteria. Applicants typically come from such positions as instructional supervi-sor at a school or in a district office, high school deans and counselors, and teachers. All participants hold a master’s de-gree in education and some hold doctoral degrees.
The completed application packet must include copies of all state certifications and graduate degrees, the applicant’s job description, a current resume, and evidence of authorized sponsorship and commitment from the applicant’s school district. At a formal interview with NJ EXCEL staff, applicants complete a writing sample and present a professional port-folio or work samples that exemplify both their leadership and supervisory practice and their knowledge of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and learning. After the interview, NJ EXCEL notifies successful applicants of their acceptance, and they begin the program in appropriate cohorts.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesThe goal of NJ EXCEL is to prepare eligible educators to meet state requirements for New Jersey supervisor, principal, and school administrator certification. Intended program outcomes are that these candidates will demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required in the areas of visionary, instructional, and community leadership, as well as strategic management.
To meet this goal, the program offers four models designed to match the individual’s educational and professional expe-rience and to offer an expedited path to three areas of state certification. The four models are:
Model #1: Certificate of Eligibility for Principal—designed for practicing supervisors with five or more years of supervisory experience (12 months; 225 instructional hours plus 60-hour school-based internship);
Model #2: Certificate of Eligibility for Principal—designed for classroom teachers and educational specialists hold-ing a supervisor certificate OR practicing supervisors with zero to four years of supervisory experience (15 months; 90-hour school-based internship and guided inquiry into supervisory practice);
Model #3: Supervisor Certificate and Certificate of Eligibil-ity for Principal—designed for classroom teachers and edu-cational specialists (18 months; 350 instructional hours and 30-hour supervisory internship, plus 90-hour school-based internship); and
Model #4: Certificate of Eligibility for School Administra-tor (Superintendent)—designed for individuals who have a certificate of eligibility or standard certification for prin-cipal (6–12 months plus 105-hour project-based district-level internship).
NJ EXCEL’s program design, curriculum, and assessments are aligned with the New Jersey Professional Standards for School Leaders and national Technology Standards for School Admin-istrators (TSSA). These standards provide a framework for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions expected of effective school leaders. The standards also establish NJ EXCEL’s expectations for candidate performance in four interrelated areas of school leadership: Visionary Leadership, Instructional Leadership, Community Leadership, and Strategic Management.
Addressing each of the four areas, the program’s problem-based curriculum structures job-embedded and internship projects that emphasize the action research process, data-driven decision making, and technology-driven research applications. Ten themes spiral through the entire program curriculum: educational leaders as agents of change and continuous improvement; legal and ethical behavior; systems thinking; strategic planning and management; creating and managing the learning community; using research, data, and technology to improve schools and learning for all students;
47 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
accountability for high academic achievement for all stu-dents; ongoing self-assessment, reflection, and professional growth; systematic inquiry into leadership and instructional practice; and application of research-based leadership and instructional improvement strategies in authentic contexts.
All candidates participate in regional Inquiry Groups, which meet regularly and also communicate online to discuss read-ings, problem-based activities, and day-to-day challenges. In addition, the members of each group support one another with peer reviews and feedback related to action research and school-based projects. Each Inquiry Group has an e-Mentor who facilitates the group’s activities and serves as its primary advisor. Cohort advisors, seminar instructors, internship men-tors, and field supervisors provide additional support related to program requirements and individual candidate needs through NJ EXCEL’s online learning community, which enables candidates and faculty to easily interact with one another as a collaborative learning community of practitioners.
The required field experiences build on candidates’ prior ex-periences and involve them in real tasks and problems that district and school leaders encounter. Each candidate receives at least one on-site visit by an NJ EXCEL field supervisor who observes him or her in the performance of specific job-embed-ded activities and provides feedback and additional support through one-on-one conferencing. All candidates must also participate in a supervised internship in a district or school other than their own. Each candidate’s district must commit to providing release time or equivalent time accommodation in order for the candidate to participate in the internship. Candidates’ internships are guided by exemplary school and district leaders—mentors selected and oriented by NJ EXCEL.
Key Success Factors The NJ EXCEL program is financially self-sustaining as a result of tuition fees. The costs for candidates is less than state uni-versity tuition and, in most cases, candidates’ school districts are willing to pay all or some of their fees.
The success of the New Jersey Principal and Supervisors As-sociation in mobilizing the state to revise the administrative code to accommodate a new pathway to administrative
certification was the initial achievement that made NJ EXCEL possible. In the two years since the first cohort of participants began the program, NJ EXCEL has demonstrated great success in attracting and preparing excellent school leaders.
Testimonials from participants, past and present, also speak to its impact. Many report that the culture of the program builds their confidence and commitment. In fact, many par-ticipants do not want the program to end, even after they earn certification. “This program has changed my life,” says one. “I’m much more passionate about student learning.” For another, the program “removed the barriers I felt to becom-ing a principal. Because of the program, I can be the kind of instructional leader I want to be.” Anecdotal evidence also suggest that candidates’ action research projects have had an impact on improving student achievement scores. In fact, in one case a candidate’s project resulted in student scores increasing by 30 percent.
The NJ EXCEL staff and participants identify the following factors as contributors to the success of the program:
›› The vision of a new model of school leadership focused on instructional improvement and student learning;
›› A strongly held core belief that all children can and will learn when the principals of their schools are effective and knowledgeable instructional leaders;
›› An authentic, research-based, job-embedded curriculum;
›› Attention to adult learning conditions and personal-ized professional development plans;
›› Alignment of the curriculum with state and national leadership standards and performance indicators;
›› The consistent use of data and feedback to strengthen the program;
›› The direct and frequent feedback to candidates from faculty, field supervisors, and mentors; and
›› The tight articulation among standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
48
49 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
New Leaders for New Schools, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and San Francisco Bay Area
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
School Districts: Chicago, Mem-phis, New York City, San Francisco Bay Area (Aspire charter school program), Washington D.C.; Broad Foundation; New Schools Venture Fund; Boeing; New Profit
2000 Bachelor’s degree; five years professional experience; two years k–12 teaching experience; demonstrated leadership
(2005) 90(2004) 56(2003) 52(2002) 31(2001) 13
2004Gender: 60% femaleEthnicity: 60% African American, 30% White, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian Am.
Three years that include: 5–6 week summer intensive; yearlong, full-time residency; 4–5 day sessions during residency; 2 years of coaching and support following placement.
Principal certification (partner with local universities to ensure credentialing)
New Leaders for New Schools is a national, New York City-
based nonprofit organization whose mission is to foster high
academic achievement for every child by recruiting and de-
veloping the next generation of outstanding leaders for the
nation’s urban public schools. It has already established suc-
cessful partnerships with public school systems and charter
schools in New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Mem-
phis, and the San Francisco Bay Area, and plans call for ex-
pansion to additional urban areas each year.
New Leaders is the brainchild of three passionate co-found-
ers: a former education policy advisor for the Clinton ad-
ministration, an education reform advocate specializing in
charter schools, and a former management consultant. In
early 2000, New Leaders became the first nonprofit to win an
award in the Harvard Business School’s annual business plan
contest. Funding offers followed, and in June New Leaders
began operation. Five core beliefs undergird and drive every
aspect of its work:
›› Every child can reach high levels of academic excel-lence, regardless of background;
›› Adults are accountable for building and maintaining systems to ensure that all children excel academically. Adults can and must do more to unlock the potential of each and every student;
›› Delivering high-quality public education to all chil-dren is a cornerstone of our democracy, economy, and society, and it is critical to sustaining a just society that affords every child the full range of opportuni-ties in life;
›› Great principals lead great schools, coaching and inspiring teachers to reach and teach every child and collaborating with students’ parents, families, and communities to make schools work; and
›› With access to outstanding public schools, all children will develop the competence, critical thinking, and social and civic skills to reach their highest potential in the classroom and in life.
Selection ProcessNew Leaders aggressively recruits nationwide, seeking ex-tremely talented people to become urban school principals. Recruitment for its 2004 candidates began in September 2003 with a campaign that included an executive-search-style approach of creating local and national nominator networks that extended to 17 education and professional conferences across the country. Many of its presentations were targeted to attract individuals outside the traditional education–based candidate pool. New Leaders received over 2,600 applications for its first 150 fellowships, represent-ing a selection rate of 6 percent. Many applicants were also
50
attracted to New Leaders from Teach for America and The New Teacher Project pools.
A three-phase system is used to screen and select candidates based on nine selection criteria describing the qualities, val-ues, and beliefs New Leaders seeks in its candidates. These criteria (along with descriptive indicators) are posted on the New Leaders Web site so potential applicants can assess their own readiness for the program:
›› An unyielding belief in the potential of all children to excel academically;
›› Persistence and determination;
›› Problem-solving skills;
›› Project management skills to deliver results;
›› Knowledge of teaching and learning;
›› Self-awareness and commitment to ongoing learning;
›› Excellent communication and listening skills;
›› The ability to build successful relationships; and
›› The ability to collaborate and build teams.
The first of four application steps is the online comple-tion and submission of a substantive 14-page question-naire designed to capture an applicant’s capacity on five of the selection criteria. (The remaining four criteria are assessed in following steps.) For example, one question-naire item requires applicants to demonstrate a record of formal or informal leadership in bringing together diverse groups of adults to accomplish a common mission. Appli-cants must also have a bachelor’s degree (or preferably a master’s degree) and a minimum of five years of profes-sional management or leadership experience in organiza-tions such as nonprofits, military service, social services, and higher education and at least two years as a teacher. Approximately 50 percent of the applicants are screened out by the questionnaire.
Those who make it through this first screening then partici-pate in an hour-and-a-half interview, which gives candidates an opportunity to share their experiences and discuss their
interests in becoming urban school principals. At this stage, each candidate is also asked to write a 15-minute analysis of a case study. Approximately 50 percent of those interviewed successfully make it through this stage.
Successful first-round applicants are invited to participate in the final phase of the selection process—a full-day interview session. Activities during this phase include a written assign-ment, one-on-one interviews, case studies, role-playing, and a presentation. Candidates have the opportunity to experi-ence a day in the life of a principal. Throughout the interview process evaluators use a comprehensive set of rubrics that are aligned with the selection criteria to rate applicants. Those who advance to this phase must bring to the interview their official transcripts, teaching certificate(s), at least one formal letter of reference from a supervisor, and a brief essay stating preferences for a mentor principal and school.
For the 2004 program, 56 candidates were admitted out of an initial pool of 1,100 applicants. New Leaders staff members assert that this acceptance rate of less than 6 percent dem-onstrates the rigorous and demanding design of the selection process and the aptness of the nine selection criteria. Over the last four years, New Leaders received over 2,600 applica-tions for its first 150 fellowships.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesNew Leaders’ program includes five years of support, a six-week intensive leadership training summer institute, a year-long, full-time residency with a mentor principal, on-site coaching, and working directly with a leadership coach—an outstanding veteran of an urban school principalship. New Leaders’ curriculum content is closely aligned with the or-ganization’s core beliefs, selection criteria, theory of educa-tional leadership, and the New Leaders Principal Leadership Competencies. These 12 essential competencies reflect re-search on the practices of urban school principals who have successfully turned around low-performing schools. To com-plete the program, candidates must demonstrate proficiency in all 12 competencies.
51 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
The program begins with a six-week Foundations Institute at the Wharton School of Management at the University of Pennsylvania. During this stage candidates attend uni-versity-level courses taught by outstanding principals, na-tional education and leadership experts, and New Leaders staff. Courses focus on skill development in instructional and transformational leadership. This summer institute also helps to build a national community of peers focused on common goals.
Following the six-week summer institute, candidates are placed with carefully selected mentor principals at schools within partner districts for a full-time residency that spans the length of the school year. During this residency, candi-dates are expected to have direct responsibility for improving student achievement and teacher development and coaching. They also attend weekly seminars for ongoing professional development and peer support in their local districts, and they receive bimonthly visits from their leadership coaches. New Leaders coaches and field support staff lead the semi-nars and use participants’ authentic experiences as a concrete basis for discussing school leadership theory. Because state certification requirements vary (e.g., some states have mini-mal requirements for teaching credentials while others have complex, multi-step requirements), New Leaders also creates opportunities for candidates to earn full state certification with a local university partner.
During the residency there are also four five-day Foundation Seminars, continuing the transformational and instructional leadership concentrations that began during the summer Foundations Institute. Held in program cities and attended by all residents, these seminars provide an opportunity for the national community to reconvene, share experiences, and provide peer support.
During the residency, candidates receive mentoring from a leadership coach, recruited from a pool of principals who have retired after successful careers leading excellent urban schools. New Leaders has developed a coaching-skills cur-riculum, and it brings the national cadre of coaches together for training four times a year. The coaches also participate
in both the summer Foundations Institute and the four Foundations Seminars throughout the year. Coaches visit each resident and mentor principal at the residency site at least once a week to help structure the resident’s working relationship and leadership responsibilities with the mentor principal. They also help residents define a personal leader-ship development plan and construct a professional portfo-lio of their accomplishments during the residency, and they serve as the faculty of record for residents’ coursework and assignments. Coaches are also responsible for conducting formal assessments of residents’ progress to evaluate each resident’s readiness for the principalship.
All candidates are required to make a long-term commit-ment to the partner school district in which they are placed. In addition to completing their paid residency, they commit to spending a minimum of three years as a principal or an assistant principal in the district. Each successful new leader receives job-seeking support. They also receive at least two years of coaching and mentoring during their first principal-ship, along with opportunities for collaboration and problem solving with other new leaders.
Key Success FactorsNew Leaders for New Schools has generated significant support from a wide variety of partners, including strategic consulting firm Kirkland and Ellis. Active funders of the New Leaders preparation program include several of the nation’s leading venture philanthropists, such as the Boston-based New Profit, Inc., the Silicon Valley-based New Schools Ven-ture Fund, and the Los Angeles-based Broad Foundation.
New Leaders’ core philosophy and theory of action emphasize the use of data analysis as a means of determining personal, professional, organizational, and program effectiveness. Be-cause the program is still relatively new, extensive success data is not yet available. However, program staff have been tracking placement rates since the beginning and that rate for successful residents is 95 percent, including 60 percent as principals and 35 percent as assistant principals. Close to 100 “new leaders” have emerged from the program and are now serving in urban schools around the country.
52
The New Leaders staff identify the following factors as impor-tant to program success:
›› A commitment of the founders and staff to the program’s vision, mission, and theory of action about ensuring that urban schools are environments in which all children achieve at high levels;
›› A coherence between core beliefs, vision, mission, selection criteria, and principal competencies that pro-vides a scaffold for everything the organization does;
›› Rigorous application, screening, selection, and admission processes;
›› Alignment of the curriculum with the selection criteria and principal leadership competencies;
›› A culture of honesty, transparency, and feedback;
›› A consistent use of data and feedback to strengthen the program;
›› Direct and frequent support, feedback, and expertise from leadership coaches;
›› The continuing leadership and ability of the national team to secure funding, streamline organizational operations, and monitor program coherence and quality; and
›› Partnerships across the public and private sectors in each city—including the school district, corporations, foundations, and government.
53 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Principals Excellence Program, Pike County, Ky.
PartnersProgram Initiated Admission Requirements
No. of Participants
Participant Demographics
Length of Instructional Program
Certification, Credits Earned
University of Kentucky, Ky. Depart-ment of Education, Ky. Association of School Administrators, AEL, U.S. Department of Education
2002 Holds or is eligible to hold principal certification
(2004) 15(2003) 15
2004Gender: 33% femaleEthnicity: 100% White
Twelve months that include: one day each week over academic year; one-week summer intensive.
18-21 UKY credits toward Level II Principal or Supervisor of Instruction certification
The Principals Excellence Program (PEP) is a partnership be-tween the University of Kentucky and eastern Kentucky’s rural Pike County School District, in cooperation with Morehead State University, which historically has trained most of the district’s teachers and administrators. The program aims to enhance the leadership skills of practicing and aspiring princi-pals in high-need Appalachian schools. Its overarching goal is to develop and refine a model for improved school leadership that ensures learning for rural school students considered at risk of academic failure. Its specific objectives are to:
1. Create a new generation of skilled instructional lead-ers and nurture a culture of learning that influences recruitment, preparation, and selection of future school leaders;
2. Institutionalize a grow-your-own strategy for empow-ering instructional leaders throughout the local com-munity and within the school community of students and parents; and
3. Model and evaluate a program of preparation, pro-fessional development, and reculturation of school leadership to ensure learning for struggling students, utilizing a partnership among the local high-need rural school district, the state’s larger land-grant university, and the regional public university that provides preservice preparation.
The PEP program consists of an interconnected series of seminar-workshops, field-based experiences, and structured reflections aimed at developing a professional community of principals who are able and willing to be change agents—reflective practitioners committed to lifelong learning and the use of data to drive decision-making. As a critical part of
this advanced leadership development program, participants engage each semester in a field-based practicum intended to support situated learning under the guidance of carefully selected mentor principals and to develop participants’ ability to conduct collaborative action research.
Selection ProcessPEP’s recruitment and selection processes are aimed at find-ing the best possible leadership candidates. PEP requires that each candidate be nominated by an administrator or other staff member who perceives the candidate’s leadership po-tential. Participants must be practicing principals, classroom teachers, or other education personnel who qualify to re-ceive provisional administrator certification and who sign an agreement to complete the training and seek a position as a school leader. Recruitment guidelines identify specific characteristics needed by Pike County school leaders who will effectively serve children and youth considered at risk of aca-demic problems. The candidate must:
›› Understand Kentucky’s Learning Goals;
›› Believe that all children can learn at high levels;
›› Have a thorough knowledge of curriculum and assessment;
›› Demonstrate instructional leadership within his or her school community;
›› Show evidence of being a master teacher;
›› Work well as a team member;
›› Show evidence of being a lifelong learner; and
›› Understand the teaching and learning process.
54
PEP initially set out to identify and recruit from Pike County and other regional school districts two 15-member cohorts of practicing and aspiring school leaders for advanced lead-ership development. Candidates had been identified by Pike County district leaders as having the potential to become effective principals or assistant principals in the district’s schools. While large geographically, Pike County has a small population, with most people living in little pocket communi-ties. As a result, district administrators tend to know teachers and principals very well. This familiarity enables them to se-lect good candidates. The first PEP cohort (January-December 2003) of 15 participants included eight practicing principals or assistant principals and seven aspiring principals who held administrator certification but currently served as classroom teachers, curriculum coordinators, deans or media specialists. The second PEP cohort (January-December 2004) included nine administrators and six teachers.
Program Design and Practical Learning ExperiencesPEP is a practical, field-based, job-embedded leadership development program guided by leadership educators from the University of Kentucky and leadership practitioners from Pike County that is delivered through a closed cohort model. This cohort structure—a uniquely defined commu-nity of learners that remains intact throughout the entire program—is considered a key program element. Early and ongoing community-building strategies ensure the creation and maintenance of a risk-free learning environment within the cohort. PEP integrates multiple learning opportunities geared toward exposing participants to various situations and venues where diverse leadership skills can be developed. PEP includes: (a) biweekly full-day seminar-workshops; (b) biweekly clinical practicum during spring semester guid-ed by elementary principal mentors; (c) biweekly clinical practicum during fall semester guided by secondary prin-cipal mentors; (d) ongoing Web-based activities; and (e) a summer institute involving all school administrators in the partnering district.
During the spring, PEP cohort members engage in a coor-dinated series of biweekly advanced educational leadership
seminars and school-site action research activities. The seminars, delivered by University of Kentucky faculty in the Department of Administration and Supervision, focus on vi-sionary and collaborative leadership practices. During alter-native weeks, PEP participants work with mentor principals in selected elementary schools in Pike County, conducting action research to identify strategies to improve student learning.
During the summer, PEP cohort members join all Pike County school administrators for an intensive, weeklong leadership academy. For the program’s first summer, a leadership con-sultant from the Kentucky Association of School Administra-tors Leadership Academy guided Pike County administrators in a review of the district’s P-12 curriculum and intensive action planning to meet targeted student achievement goals in mathematics and science. That fall, the biweekly advanced leadership seminars with university faculty focused on instruc-tional and ethical leadership practices. Action research was conducted in three secondary schools within Pike County.
The second cohort began the program in January 2004 and will continue through December 2004, following the same general pattern as the first, but in a more streamlined ver-sion that was developed based on feedback and program as-sessment. Nearby Johnson County became a partner for the second PEP cohort.
Pike County School District has developed and implemented a comprehensive model of administrator evaluation using the ISLLC standards performance indicators as the framework. Thus, to align with the district’s administrator performance framework, the PEP curriculum is structured on the four cen-tral and recurring themes within the ISLLC standards:
›› A vision for success;
›› A focus on teaching and learning;
›› An involvement of all stakeholders; and
›› A demonstration of ethical behavior.
Both formal and informal data inform and drive the actions of PEP’s instructional and leadership teams. Focus group interviews involving Cohort A members were conducted in
55 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
March 2003 and October 2003. Additional focus group inter-views for Cohort A were scheduled for fall 2004. An evalua-tion survey was administered at the close of the first training module and at the beginning of the third module; another post-survey was administered at the close of Cohort A in De-cember 2003. Formal data collection for Cohort B is proceed-ing in the same way.
Success Factors Although PEP formally began in January 2003, its impact on the community of administrative practice was becoming noticeable during the summer institute held in Pikeville dur-ing June 2003. Pike County district leadership team members who observed the summer institute noted marked differences in interactions among district administrators: The group ap-peared to be a more supportive, collaborative community of practice. One participant-observer noted participants’ increased displays of confidence and competence as educa-tional leaders. According to the project director, practicing principals involved in PEP say, “they continue to learn more about the practice of educational administration through the PEP network—despite their breadth and depth of experiences as principals.”
PEP receives grant funding from the U.S. Department of Ed-ucation’s School Leadership Development Program through September 2005 that allows for a formal program evaluation. Pike County School District hopes to be able to continue the program internally using district administrators as instructors.
Reflecting on the progress and successes of the program, University of Kentucky faculty, Pike County School District administrators, and PEP participants identified the following contributing factors:
›› The collaborative partnership and shared vision between the Pike County School District—especially the superintendent—and the University of Kentucky faculty;
›› Seed funding to support start-up costs;
›› Shared responsibility between the university and the district for developing curriculum, monitoring PEP candidates’ progress, and planning for the logistical implementation of PEP sessions;
›› The integration of the curriculum with authentic tasks and reality-based examples from PEP participants’ experiences;
›› The ongoing assessment of cohort progress to ensure that program components were logically interconnect-ed and delivered at relevant times to provide program coherence;
›› The strong commitment of university faculty and district leadership to “get the job done” and then celebrate publicly to acknowledge accomplish-ments; and
›› The consistent in-district monitoring of PEP ac-tivities by the district’s director of curriculum and instruction and a leadership consultant who also provides on-site coaching support for new principals.
56
Boston Principal FellowshipSchool Leadership InstituteBoston Public Schools26 Court StreetBoston, MA 02108http://www.bostonsli.org/
Rachel CurtisExecutive Director
First Ring Leadership AcademyCleveland State University2121 Euclid Avenue, KB 1508Cleveland, OH 44115http://www.csuohio.edu/coe/Overview/academic_Departments/CASAL/firstRingLeadership.html
Deborah MorinExecutive Director
LAUNCH (Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago)Chicago Principals and Administrators Association (CPAA)221 North La Salle Street, Ste. 1550Chicago, IL 60601http://www.cpaa.cps.k12.il.us
Faye Terrell-PerkinsExecutive Director
NJ EXCEL (New Jersey Expedited Certification for Educational Leadership)Foundation for Educational AdministrationNew Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association12 Centre DriveMonroe Township, NJ 08831http://www.njexcel.org/
Eloise ForsterExecutive Director
New Leaders for New Schools30 West 26th Street, 2nd FloorNew York, NY 10010http://www.nlns.org/
Jonathan SchnurChief Executive OfficerMatt EvansChief Information Officer
Principals Excellence ProgramPike County Schools and University of KentuckyEDA 111 Dickey HallLexington, KY 40506http://www.uky.edu
Tricia Browne-FerrignoPEP Project Director
WestEd730 Harrison StreetSan Francisco, CA 94107 http://www.wested.org/
Glen HarveyChief Executive Officer
Nikola FilbyAssociate Director, Regional Laboratory Program
Edvance11044 Research Boulevard, Ste. B300Austin, TX 78759 http://www.edvance.org/
Dean Nafziger Chief Executive Officer
Kristin Arnold Project Director
AcknowledgmentsThe development of this guide was initiated and directed by Nina S. Rees, assistant deputy secretary in the Office of In-novation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Educa-tion. Sharon Horn was project director.
An external advisory panel provided feedback to refine the study scope and prioritize issues to investigate. Members in-cluded Dick Flanary, National Association of Secondary School Administrators; Libia Gil, New American Schools; Betty Hale, Institute for Educational Leadership; Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute; Lynn Liao, Broad Foundation; Kent Peter-son, University of Wisconsin at Madison; Terry Ryan, Fordham Institute; and Jon Schnur, New Leaders for New Schools.
Staff in the Department of Education who provided input and reviewed drafts include Susan Sclafani, Tom Corwin, Michael Petrilli, Meredith Miller, Phil Rosenfelt, John Gibbons, Jeff Sims, Pat Gore, Peggy Zelinko, and Jacquelyn Zimmermann.
This guide was written, designed, and based on a report by WestEd.
WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service agency committed to improving learning at all stages of life, both in school and out. WestEd has offices across the United States and also serves as one of the nation’s 10 regional edu-cational laboratories.
WestEd’s partner in developing this series of research reports and innovation guides is Edvance. Created by the Ameri-can Productivity and Quality Center, Edvance is a resource for process and performance improvement with a focus on benchmarking, knowledge management, performance mea-surement, and quality improvement initiatives in education.
The six programs cooperating in the development of this guide and the report from which it is drawn were generous with both their time and attention to the project. We would like to thank all those who were instrumental in coordinating and participating in the site visits that inform the report and this guide.
57 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
The research design and methodology for this project is an adaptation of the four-phase benchmark-
ing process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC), along with general case
study processes. This guide is based on a longer and more detailed report that includes individual case
studies of each of the six study sites and a cross-site analysis of key generalizable findings. While clas-
sic benchmarking looks for best or promising practices using quantitative measures and comparisons
among organizations, most of the innovative programs in this study are too new to fully support this
methodology. A brief overview of this project’s adapted methodology follows.
Appendix A: Research Methodology
Develop Conceptual FrameworkA study scope or conceptual framework was developed
from an analysis of research and descriptive information
about school leadership preparation, including alterna-
tive route programs. Experts in leadership development
and alternative route approaches were recruited to serve
on an external advisory panel that provided feedback to
refine the framework and prioritize issues to investigate.
The resulting study scope and guiding questions directed
all aspects of the study (see figure 2 on page 7).
Site selection was a multistep process to ensure that the
guide would feature an array of practices reflected in
the elements of the study scope and would represent a
variety of geographic locations and contexts with which
district administrators, university faculty members, and
other key stakeholders could identify. Initially, 60 po-
tential sites were identified based on public documents,
marketing materials, reports, and program Web sites us-
ing online search descriptors such as alternative leader-
ship preparation, alternative principal certification, al-
ternative licensure for school administrators, expedited
certification, and accelerated certification.
A screening process filtered the list to 18 sites. These
second-round sites were selected based on four crite-
ria: candidates are recruited into the program based on
demonstrated leadership experience; the program of-
fers an accelerated route to certification; the program
is currently accepting candidates; and the program has
evidence of promising practices in the 24 areas of the
study scope, such as screening candidates using stated
criteria, tailored, field-based programming, and strong
mentor support.
The 18 sites were then screened using a weighted criteria
matrix based on the study scope (figure 2). The screen-
58
ing process was conducted through targeted phone
interviews with program staff and thorough reviews of
program materials including: recruiting and application
procedures; selection criteria and screening process;
curriculum scope and sequence; instructional manuals;
residency experience; coaching; mentoring; participant
evaluation and support; follow-through support; and
program evaluation information. The selected six sites
scored between 24 and 20 on a scale of 24 possible
points and were ranked based on their weighted scores.
In addition, they represented a range of geographic loca-
tions, contextual conditions, and types of programming.
Collect DataCollecting detailed descriptive information from pro-
gram staff, partners, funders, participants, and district
leaders was key to understanding each program’s prac-
tices, the outcome or impact each achieved, and the
lessons learned from which others could benefit. The
major steps to this phase involved finalizing the site
visit interview guide based on the study scope and ar-
ranging and conducting site visits to the programs.
Each of the six sites hosted a two-day visit that included
interviews with administrators, program participants, and
partners, as well as observation of events when schedul-
ing permitted. During the site visits, these key personnel
and stakeholders were asked questions from the site visit
discussion guide tailored to their particular role group.
In addition, artifacts from the sites, such as applications,
planning tools, interview protocols, curriculum materials,
and participant work were collected to provide concrete
examples of program practices. The study team collated
the information collected during the site visits and de-
veloped a case study for each site.
Analyze and ReportOnce all the data were collected, the project team
analyzed them to understand the promising practices
uncovered throughout the benchmarking project, both
within and across programs.
Two products resulted from this research: a report of
findings and this practitioner’s guide. The report pro-
vides a more detailed analysis of key findings across
sites, a detailed case study of each site, a collection of
artifacts, and key project documents. The practitioner’s
guide is a summary of the report intended for broad
distribution.
AdaptThis guide offers descriptive examples of new ways to
prepare school leaders for the challenging work await-
ing them. Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to
select, adapt, and implement practices that meet their
individual needs and contexts. The guide will be broadly
distributed around the country through presentations
at national and regional conferences, as well as through
national associations and networks. The guide is also
accessible online at http://www.ed.gov/admins/recruit/
prepare/alternative/index.html.
59 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Appendix B: Resources
The Broad Foundation works to improve k-12 urban public education through better governance, manage-ment, and labor relations. The foundation’s goals are to train a broad, deep bench of current and aspiring leaders in education; to redefine the traditional roles, practices, and policies of school board members, super-intendents, principals, and labor union leaders to better address contemporary challenges in education; to at-tract and retain the highest quality talent to leadership roles in education; to equip school systems and their leaders with modern tools for effective management; to provide tangible incentives for educators to advance academic performance; and to honor and showcase success wherever it occurs in urban education.
http://www.broadfoundation.org/
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., supports research, publications, and action projects of national significance in elementary and secondary education reform, as well as significant education reform projects. In May 2003, the institute, along with the Broad Foundation, published Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto. The docu-ment contends that American public education faces a “crisis in leadership” that cannot be alleviated from traditional sources of school principals and superinten-dents. Its signers do not believe this crisis can be fixed by conventional strategies for preparing, certifying,
and employing education leaders. Instead, they urge that first-rate leaders be sought outside the education field, earn salaries on par with their peers in other pro-fessions, and gain new authority over school staffing, operations, and budgets.
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/
The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) seeks to improve education—and the lives of children and their families—through positive and visionary change. Through its School Leadership for the 21st Century Ini-tiative, IEL has published several informative reports on the state of school leadership and the need for highly qualified leaders in America’s public schools. The task force report Leadership for Student Learning: Rein-venting the Principalship (October 2000) suggests that the core mission of the principalship must be redefined as leadership for student learning. To “reinvent the principalship” for 21st century schools, communities must fill the pipeline with effective school leaders, sup-port the profession, and guarantee quality and results. Guidelines and suggested questions are included for those who wish to start conversations on reinventing the principalship in their communities by bringing to-gether diverse constituencies and empowering leaders with knowledge and applicable ideas.
http://www.iel.org/
The organizations listed below are provided as examples of resources that may be helpful to the reader. Their inclusion should not imply an endorsement by the Department. There also may be many other useful resources on this topic.
60
The National Center for Education Information
(NCEI) is a private, nonpartisan research organization
in Washington, D.C., specializing in survey research
and data analysis. NCEI is the authoritative source of
information about alternative preparation and certifica-
tion of teachers and school administrators. The Web site
provides easy access to detailed information about poli-
cies and alternative certification routes in each state.
http://www.ncei.com/
The Haberman Educational Foundation, Inc. pro-
motes research-based models for identifying teach-
ers and principals—particularly educators who serve
students at risk and in poverty. The Foundation’s “Star
Online Administrator Questionnaire” and “Online Pre-
Screener” identify candidates who are likely to succeed
in alternative administrative certification programs.
http://www.habermanfoundation.org/
The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of
public officials who head departments of elementary
and secondary education in the states, the District of
Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activ-
ity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO pro-
vides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on
major educational issues. In its publication The Inter-state School Leaders Licensure Consortium: Standards
For School Leaders (1996), the ISLLC standards pres-ent a common core of knowledge, dispositions, and performances that link leadership to productive schools and enhanced education outcomes. The ISLLC stan-dards have been used as a foundational source for the six programs in this guide.
http://www.ccsso.org/
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) is a nonprofit organization that provides informa-tion to state education policy leaders on many critical education issues. The ECS Web site offers data about what states are doing regarding alternative licensure and certification of principals and superintendents. Recent publications include: Licensure/Certifica-tion: What States Are Doing—Administrator License Requirements, Portability, Waivers and Alternative Certification, which contains information on license requirements, portability, waivers, and alternative cer-tification for administrators and allows for comparing across states (April 2004), and Certification of Princi-pals and Superintendents in the U.S., 2003, which pro-vides information on school administrator certification requirements for each state. This document provides state-by-state information on regular path and alter-nate path certification requirements for school admin-istrator certification.
http://www.ecs.org/
61 Inno
vatio
ns in
Edu
catio
n: In
nova
tive
Pat
hway
s to
Sch
ool L
eade
rshi
p
Notes1 Elaine McEwan summarizes 20 years of research on
effective schools and discusses her analysis in The traits
of highly effective principals: From good to great per-
formance (Corwin Press, 2003).
2 Murphy, J. and Louis, K. S. (1999). Handbook of re-
search on educational administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass; Smith, W. F. and Andrews, R. L. (1989).
Instructional leadership: How principals make a dif-
ference. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development; Glickman, C. D. (2002).
Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development; and Elmore, R. J. (2000). Building
a new structure for school leadership. New York: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
3 Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., and Bryk,
A. S. (2001). School instructional program coherence:
Benefits and challenges. Chicago: Consortium on Chi-
cago School Research.
4 For a perspective on the school community environ-
ment as a positive force for school reform, see Fullan,
M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educa-
tional reform. London: The Falmer Press, pp. 84–103.
5 Feistritzer, E. (January 2003). School administrator
certification in the United States, 2002. Washington,
D.C.: National Center for Education Information.
6 The 11 states reporting that they have approved
innovative pathways to administrative certification
include California (new legislation), Idaho, Kentucky,
Maryland (intended for people already in the education
system), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Hampshire, Ohio (not used), Tennessee (not used), and
Texas (only for people who have been teachers or prin-
cipals). Although New Jersey, New York, and Oregon re-
port having no alternate routes, they do have programs
for non-traditional candidates to get into administrative
jobs. Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, and Kansas have alter-
nate routes for superintendents, but not for principals.
Hawaii, which has only one school district, has an
alternate route for principals. Florida passed legislation
in 2002 giving local school boards authority to set their
own alternative qualifications for persons wishing to
become principals. Feistritzer, op.cit.
7 Leithwood, K. and Duke, D. L. (1999). “A century’s
quest to understand school leadership.” In Murphy, J.
and Louis, K. S., Handbook of research on educational
administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 45–72.
8 Haycock, K. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High-poverty
schools exceeding expectations. Washington, D.C.: The
Education Trust; Barkley, S., Bottoms, G., Feagin, C. H.,
and Clark, S. (1999). Leadership matters: Building lead-
ership capacity. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Educa-
tion Board; Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the
depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.
9 http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/interstate_school_
leaders_licensure_consortium/standards_for_school_
leaders/562.cfm. See also WestEd. (2003). Moving
standards into everyday work: Descriptions of practice.
San Francisco: Author.
62
10 NAESP Fact Sheet/NAESP 2002 Survey at http://www.
naesp.org.
11 Knapp, M. S. et al. (1995). Teaching for meaning in
high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College
Press; Charles A. Dana Center. (1999). Hope for urban
education: A study of nine high-performing high-
poverty urban elementary schools. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education; Blase J., and Blase J.
(1999). “Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers’ perspectives,” Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35 (3), 349–78.
